Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Violent Crime

John Baron: What measures the Government are taking to combat the rise in violent crime.

David Blunkett: Contrary to the thrust of the question, the internationally respected British crime survey showed that violent crime fell by 5 per cent. last year. Recorded crime rose, however, as more people were prepared and confident enough to register crimes that they would not have reported before. We published the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill last Tuesday. Twenty-five per cent. of all violent crime is perpetrated in the home, and therefore involves domestic violence issues. As people's confidence in the system increases, however, so will the recording of such crime, and I am pleased and proud of that.

John Baron: I thank the Home Secretary for his response but, despite his excuses, the general public know that violent crime is significantly on the increase. During the past five years, it has been recorded that violent crime has risen by nearly two thirds. Home Office figures for last year alone suggest that, in my area, robbery was up by a third, burglary was up by a half and violence against the person more than doubled. When will the Government stop their gimmicky initiatives and go to war against the criminals by introducing much stiffer court sentences and a massive increase in the numbers of police on the streets? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Blunkett: Burglary and robbery are down according both to the British crime survey and to the recorded crime figures but, yes, violent crime has risen, which is why we need to get a grip on binge drinking and to take decisive action on the enforcement of breaches. It is also why the antisocial behaviour measures that we have put in place need to work on the ground. Let me be absolutely clear: the new transparent recording system now records crimes that have never before been designated as violent, and that have not hitherto been recorded. That was brought in not by us but by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2000–01, and it has inevitably led to a much more visible and transparent system. If we are going to have a sensible debate about crime, that at least should be recognised.

Meg Munn: As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, 25 per cent. of violent crimes take place in the home. In addition, he will be aware that, on average, two women a week die as a result of domestic violence. Can he tell me what measures in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will protect women and intervene to stop the ever-increasing circle of violence?

David Blunkett: We spelled out in the statement that I made in July, and again in the Bill last Tuesday, a range of measures that will ensure not only early intervention but, in the case of a continuing problem, the exclusion of a person from the family and the neighbourhood. The idea, which is now gaining salience, that the perpetrator should move out, rather than the woman and the children, is one that we can all welcome.

Boris Johnson: Given the success and importance of Crimestoppers in solving crimes, does the Home Secretary agree that it would make sense to give it a budget projected forward over four years, rather than forcing it to rely on an annual payment that it may or may not receive?

David Blunkett: I am all in favour of being encouraged by Opposition Members—not least the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—in terms of extra public spending, the partnership with the voluntary sector and civic renewal. I think that it makes sense, in relation to our arrangements with all such helpful voluntary activity, to have a continuity of budget over more than a 12-month period.

Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend is fully aware that, when we speak of violent crime, much is said about gun crime. Over the weekend, I read a sickening newspaper article with which I had great difficulty in coming to terms. It was about what appears to be an increase in crimes committed using knives, machetes and axes, some of which could be gangland crime. What do the crime figures tell us about the use of such weapons?

David Blunkett: I will write to my hon. Friend with the exact figures relating to violent crimes involving the use of weapons of that description. He will be aware that action was taken in the late 1990s to strengthen the law in relation to the availability and use of knives, but we should not forget that issue, bearing in mind the understandable attention that we and the public pay to gun crime.

David Davis: May I seek your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, on a non-violent topic? I add the congratulations of Conservative Members to those of hundreds of thousands of people elsewhere in London who are cheering on the English rugby team for their success.
	The Home Secretary referred to his comment on 27 June 2001, when he said that
	"providing an answer to violent crime, will be paramount in restoring people's confidence in the system."—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 655.]
	He has talked about transparency. All we have heard today are transparent excuses. For the first time in the history of the United Kingdom, more than 1 million violent crimes have been recorded. Has not he failed to restore people's confidence in our system?

David Blunkett: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting the rugby celebrations into this afternoon's questions. I agree with him entirely. I have always thought that a little pushing and shoving on the rugby field was better than a bit of shoving and pushing on a Saturday night.
	I agree with myself, because I agree with the quote that the right hon. Gentleman read out. That is paramount. I know that the Leader of the Opposition would agree with those sentiments, because when he was Home Secretary recorded crime under the old system went up by 19 per cent.

David Davis: Overall violent crime is not the only area of concern. Under Labour, gun crime has more than doubled. Will the Home Secretary explain why the number of gun crimes has passed 10,000 for the first time in British history? Does he intend to do anything about the plague of imported handguns that we are witnessing at the moment?

David Blunkett: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party opposed the legislation on handguns introduced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary. We took action in the recent Criminal Justice Bill, because the difficulty is that what is legal or illegal depends on who has their hands on the weaponry. The amnesty that we held in April was the most successful amnesty ever, with more than 44,000 guns handed in.

David Davis: Answer the question.

David Blunkett: The answer is clearly to prevent people from being able to get hold of replicas or to get hold of and to adapt Brocock guns, and that should be part of the new legislation. I would have thought that everyone supported that. There is an underlying issue for all of us: it is not a party political issue. The growth in gun crime arises out of gangs, often associated with drugs, getting their hands on guns from outside the country and on formerly legal guns inside the country. All of us have to work in partnership with the police—as communities have done in north London and Manchester—to change the culture and the behaviour of young men in particular and to clamp down on the organised thuggery that lays behind these problems. We can all agree on wanting that to succeed.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know that domestic violence in our constituencies is often the result of the misuse of alcohol and alcohol-related problems. In my constituency, partnerships between the police and groups such as the Women's Refuge have done some positive work. What wider partnerships will help us to fight the awful violence that takes place every weekend in our constituencies?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety brought from her previous role in the Department of Health the embryo of an alcohol misuse strategy. She and I are working on that, in order to publish in the new year something radical and effective that will assist at local level in ensuring that we clamp down on binge drinking and on the misuse of alcohol in general, which can cause so much misery. I may be called Scrooge as well as everything else, but perhaps this is the moment for me to appeal to people to be moderate in their drinking leading up to Christmas while also having a wonderful time.

Mark Oaten: On the issue of alcohol, 47 per cent. of violent crime is the result of the overuse of alcohol, and 92 per cent. of policemen have been attacked by drunks. Why is it that, although the Government promised the alcohol strategy paper in 1998, we have had to wait so long for it?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety assures me that we are on schedule for the 2004 date. That is a publicly stated objective. It is sometimes necessary to wait while the yolk comes out of the egg. As long as it makes a decent omelette, the waiting will have been worth while.

Previous Convictions

Liz Blackman: When he expects provisions giving juries the right to see a defendant's previous convictions to be implemented.

Paul Goggins: The provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to evidence of bad character will be enforced only once sufficient training and guidance have been provided and the necessary rules of court have been made. At this stage, no final decision has been made about the precise timing.

Liz Blackman: I welcome those powers, which I believe properly balance the rights of victims with the safeguarding of the accused. I believe that they will make a significant difference in my constituency by bringing more guilty people to justice. They will, however, make no difference at all until the provisions are implemented. May I urge my hon. Friend to make that a top priority?

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome and for her remarks about the improved balance that the provisions will bring to the criminal justice system. Obviously, however, given the most radical shake-up in the criminal justice system for a generation and given the number of provisions, it will take time to build the necessary capacity and to ensure that the relevant training is undertaken. That will be done as quickly as is practicable, because we all want the reforms to operate as soon as possible.

Burglary

David Taylor: What publicly funded alarm schemes he and his ministerial colleagues have assessed in terms of their ability to deter would-be distraction burglars; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: The Home Office established a distraction burglary taskforce in 2000, with funding of £1 million, to provide advice and guidance on tackling such crime. Another £1 million was provided for three projects to tackle distraction burglary. Alarms can play an important role in helping older people to live independent and safer lives in their own homes, but the Home Office does not assess individual systems.

David Taylor: I thank the Minister for visiting Coalville last month to review the work of PRIDE, the protection and reassurance initiative to defend the elderly. Under that initiative, nearly 2,000 remote-control alarms, very visible and very audible, have been fixed to the outside of homes occupied by vulnerable people. What was the Minister's assessment of the scheme? How can we secure sustained funding, and how can we roll the scheme out to other areas in the light of its success in driving revictimisation rates down to an incredibly low 2 per cent.?

Hazel Blears: I was delighted to be able to visit local people in Coalville, and to have the honour of presenting Mr. and Mrs. Wickwar with their brand new PRIDE alarm. I was also delighted to meet Mrs. Bird, who was already the proud owner of an alarm. She told me, "I have never had to use the alarm, but I feel so much safer now."
	My hon. Friend is right. The alarms act as a deterrent and provide the crucial reassurance sought by elderly people in particular. I am pleased to say that we are investing £72 million in the building safer communities fund at local level to establish crime and disorder reduction partnerships to fund schemes such as that and many others. I urge them to fund all schemes that can make people, especially older people, feel safer in their homes.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister not agree that tough deterrents work, particularly in the case of professional career criminals such as burglars? Will she urge the Government to find a reverse gear and ensure that burglars go to jail?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will, I think, accept that it is vital for us, as well as being tough on crime, to be tough on the causes of crime. It is this Government who, as well as imposing stiff sentences for burglary, have reduced its incidence by 39 per cent. since coming to office. I bet his constituents, like mine, would far rather not be burgled in the first place, and it is this Government who have been able to drive burglary down. There have been some tough sentences, but there has been crime reduction as well. This Government operate on all fronts.

Drug-related Offences

Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on arrests for drug-related offences in the north-east.

Caroline Flint: There were 9,300 arrests for drug offences, including possession and supply, in the north-east. In addition, 47,800 arrests were made for property crime offences, such as robbery, burglary, theft and handling. Home Office research has found that drug-using arrestees commit much higher volumes of property crime than those who do not take drugs.

Stephen Hepburn: We were told that one reason why we needed to invade Afghanistan was to stop the flow of heroin to this country, but there is as much heroin on the streets of the north-east as there has ever been, and 95 per cent. of it comes from Afghanistan. What are we going to do to tackle the drug-related crime that seems to be getting out of hand in this country?

Caroline Flint: Drug-related crime is a serious matter, and I should like to pay tribute to police forces and others in the north-east, whose recent significant results have led to some major arrests and court convictions. However, my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the source, and that is why we have a 10-year strategy to tackle opium coming from Afghanistan. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), will hold a conference on the issue on 2 February in Kabul. We will also be working with all agencies to try to deal with the source of supply. However, I should point out that it is far better for people to deal with a state that wants to work together than with one that does not.

Nick Hawkins: Does not the Minister recognise that one real problem—in the north-east and throughout the rest of the country—is a lack of the intensive rehabilitation places that get people off the conveyor belt to crime by ensuring that they are taken away from drugs? Given that not only many parts of the media but some of her colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), have waged campaigns on that issue, will the Government finally recognise that they are wrong and provide the number of intensive rehabilitation places for hard drug users that we Conservatives have called for?

Caroline Flint: The number of places available is increasing. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to treatment, and intensive rehabilitation places are important, but so is care in the community. I am pleased to say that, in addition to Middlesbrough, four further areas in the north-east will benefit from our criminal justice interventions programme. That programme will see people through from the point of arrest and charge to whatever may happen next, whether it be custodial sentence or community sentence, to ensure that they get treatment that lasts.

Victim Support

Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on Government funding for Victim Support.

Paul Goggins: The Government's annual grant to Victim Support has more than doubled in recent years—from £11.7 million in 1996–97 to £30 million in 2003–04. That is helping to support almost 1.5 million victims of crime, and more than 300,000 witnesses of crime, each year.

Bob Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the voluntary victim support groups throughout the country that provide such valuable services to victims of crime? I very much welcome the Government's doubling of funding for Victim Support, but there is concern about how much of that money is getting through to local victim support groups at the front line; indeed, my local group says that it has seen none of that extra money. Will my hon. Friend look into that matter to ensure that as much of the new money as possible reaches the local groups that provide the support that victims need?

Paul Goggins: I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the 12,000 volunteers, including those in his constituency, who contribute at the sharp end to the work of Victim Support. If there are issues in his area, I should be very happy to look into them, because we want to ensure that the money goes to those who work at the sharp end. Indeed, we are looking to devolving funding down to local level, so that what Victim Support provides more neatly fits with the requirements of each area.

George Osborne: Does the Minister agree that face-to-face contact with a police officer is often very important to victims, so that they can feel that the crime of which they are a victim is being taken seriously? Some police officers have told me that, in their view, sending a police officer round when someone's car has been stolen, for example, is a waste of police time. What does the Minister think of that view?

Paul Goggins: It is essential that the police respond to all incidents of crime, but it is obvious that they need to prioritise in terms of how quickly they respond to particular incidents. It is vital that the police work in partnership with agencies such as Victim Support, so that both can work together to provide not only the justice that people want, but the support that victims of crime need.

Graham Allen: Will the Under-Secretary congratulate Members of all parties in this House who participated in the Victim Support day a couple of weeks ago, meeting volunteers to support the work that they do? Will he ensure that the funding for Victim Support is devolved to the relevant areas locally, as he suggested in a previous answer, and that the level of funding nationally is maintained at least in line with inflation? Will he ensure that the witness support service does not receive funding on a hand-to-mouth basis that may end in two or three months, but has the certainty of several years of financial support?

Paul Goggins: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the 200 Members from both sides of the House who showed an interest in the open days that were run by Victim Support. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attended an event in his constituency and I attended events in Manchester and Trafford.
	It is vital that the levels of funding allocated relate to the level of work that each local Victim Support project faces, and we must do our best to make sure that they have the resources they require. The witness support service that my hon. Friend mentioned is very important and we will find ways of trying to support its work as best we can.

Charities

Patsy Calton: How many instruments giving effect to changes to objects of charities were subject to (a) negative procedure and (b) affirmative procedure in Parliament in each of the last five years.

Fiona Mactaggart: The numbers of instruments giving effect to changes to objects of charities subject to negative resolution procedure were one in 1998, one in 1999, five in 2000, two in 2001, one in 2002, which was subsequently withdrawn, and two in 2003. There were no instruments subject to affirmative procedure during that time.

Patsy Calton: What checks are made as to the accuracy and legitimacy of statutory instruments laid in that way? A subsequently withdrawn instrument in 2002 concerning Cheadle royal hospital contained substantial inaccuracies that were passed on by the Charity Commission, and the charity concerned was involved in the disposal of millions of pounds of charitable donations that have gone into public and private ownership. I am concerned that we still have no idea of the likely income to be obtained from the remaining assets.

Fiona Mactaggart: That is a matter for the Charity Commission, as the non-ministerial Department responsible, but I pass on the thanks of the commission and of my predecessor to the hon. Lady for drawing the failures in the instrument to the notice of the House and the commission. Her determination to intervene has meant that the matters have begun to be resolved. She will be aware that there is a draft new instrument—she has been sent a copy—to ensure that those failures do not continue in any future instrument. She asked whether I could be satisfied that there was no continuing flaw in the administration of the body. The matter has been drawn to the attention of Greater Manchester police and the Charity Commissioners. The matter has been investigated by forensic accountants, who are confident that there is nothing about which we should continue to be concerned.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government will be proposing a charities Bill in this Session of Parliament? If so, will the Bill address the abuse of power that the Charity Commissioners exhibit from time to time? I can give a personal example. Will she ensure that there is provision in the Bill to allow charities to appeal against a decision requiring them to cease functioning immediately as a charity?

Fiona Mactaggart: I can confirm that we will be publishing a draft Bill and that it will contain a mechanism for appealing against the decision of the Charity Commissioners to a special tribunal.

Police

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on police emergency response times.

Hazel Blears: Responsibility for deciding the most appropriate emergency response times should lie with the chief officer in each police force area. However, the vast majority of forces are committed to attending emergency calls within 10 minutes for urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas.

Ben Chapman: Although it is right to say that chief constables are best placed to react to local needs, and I accept that some evidence is anecdotal and that Merseyside police, for example, receive 1.2 million calls for assistance each year, I am afraid that the perception of the service is often poor. When a school in my constituency was recently invaded by intimidating and aggressive youths assaulting pupils and causing mayhem, the headmaster dialled 999 and the police arrived 35 minutes later, long after the invaders had skedaddled—and that was an emergency call. When making non-emergency calls, my constituents sometimes cannot get through at all and, in some cases when they do, it takes the police hours to respond.
	Is it not time that we considered putting in place appropriate mechanisms and resources, so that responses can be quicker and better feedback can be given to those who call, and that we published a national non-emergency number?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has raised some serious issues, and I am aware of his concerns, particularly about Merseyside. I therefore made it my business to speak personally to the chief constable about those issues last week. I know that he is in correspondence with my hon. Friend, particularly on the issue of getting feedback from people about what happened when they called and what the outcome was. The chief constable is piloting an interesting project in Merseyside to make sure that people get proper information.
	There is also an issue about whether it is right to categorise calls as emergency, urgent or routine and whether we have the right calls in the right categories. There is work to be done there. However, I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, in Merseyside, the police answer 80 per cent. of their emergency calls within the 10-minute limit. I am absolutely sure that the chief constable and the force are willing to engage with my hon. Friend and other MPs throughout Merseyside to make sure that local people get the best possible service.

James Paice: Given that police authorities said that they needed a funding increase of over 6 per cent. and the Government are giving them an increase of 3.25 per cent., how on earth are they to have the resources necessary to meet not only the response times that the Minister just described but the much tighter response times that the constituents of all hon. Members would like them to meet? Is it not rather odd that the Government set 31 different performance indicators for the police, interfering in every way in how local police forces are run, yet they do not set one for emergency response times?

Hazel Blears: We have to get the facts right. This year's funding allowance rose by 4.2 per cent: there is an across-the-board rise of 3.25 per cent. in the general grant, and on top of that there are specific grants, particularly for the crimefighting fund, which have given us record numbers of police officers, more than we have ever had on the streets before. There are also 2,000 community support officers out there, helping to reassure the public.
	That comes on top of absolutely massive increases over the past three years—a 30 per cent. rise in funding for the police, which is a real terms increase of 17 per cent. That can be compared with a real terms increase of 2 per cent. during the Tories' last couple of years in office. That is this Government's record, and it means that we have made available the resources to ensure that the police can deliver on response times, on reassurance, on fighting crime, on reducing burglary and vehicle crime, and on making this country a safer place to live.

Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the biggest single subject of complaints about policing is response times? Although she is right to point out that we have seen a massive increase in funding, does she, as a Greater Manchester MP like me, agree that it would be right and proper to have an objective standard against which to judge the police? The 10-minute response time should be measured against achievement, and if we could have those results published, police force by police force, division by division, we would be able to hold the police to account in a way that the public would appreciate.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on performance. He will be aware of the push to drive up the performance standards of Greater Manchester police force. We are trying to reduce the number of best value performance indicators in the police because we want to free up forces to deploy their resources in the right place at the right time. It is important that they respond on time, but what happens as a result of their attending is also crucial. It is all very well to tick the box and say, "We were there in 10 minutes," but I am concerned to find out what happened when they turned up. For example, was the outcome good? Was the right number of officers sent to a fracas, or to the kind of incident that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) outlined?

Criminal Records Bureau

Annette Brooke: How much the Criminal Records Bureau has lost on average on (a) each standard disclosure and (b) each enhanced disclosure over the last 12 months.

Beverley Hughes: At the eleventh hour, I realised that there could be different ways of interpreting this question. I had assumed that it was about money, so I hope that that is the right approach. Had we moved to full-cost recovery in 2003–04, the fee for standard and enhanced disclosures would have to have been set at £34 and £39 respectively, as against the actual fees set of £24 and £29.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister continue to press the Criminal Records Bureau to reduce costs and operate efficiently? Will she also ensure that any such savings are reflected in future fees? A 100 per cent. increase last year and 17 per cent. next year is just too much for our already overstretched and overburdened community and voluntary organisations.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Lady should know that voluntary organisations do not pay anything—they avail themselves of the disclosure service free of charge. For other organisations, we have made it clear that by 2005–06 charges will have to be set that enable the full cost of the service to be recovered. That, of course, also allows the Criminal Records Bureau to continue to improve its standard of service, which it has done. It now has the capacity to assess 50,000 applications a week—double the rate last year—and it more than meets the service standards of 90 per cent. of standard disclosures in two weeks and enhanced disclosures in four weeks. I am pleased to say that, of those people using the service, one in five have decided not to employ somebody as a result of disclosure, which shows that in terms of its main purpose—protecting children and vulnerable adults—it is working very well.

Simon Burns: May I point out to the Minister, however, that her answer omits the fact that from April next year the enhanced fees will go up to £33, which is a 175 per cent. increase since April 2002? That places a particular hardship on care homes. To provide at least a semblance of value for money, when will the Government ensure that the time taken to clear an investigation is reduced from about four weeks to the two weeks that Health Ministers promised in Committee when the requirements were introduced?

Beverley Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me recount the performance standards that are being met. In fact, nine out of 10 applications are for enhanced disclosures, the majority of which are being dealt with in two weeks. I am sure that he will agree that the previous system was not working. The police national computer could not cope with the number of applications. As of 29 November this year, more than 3 billion applications have been submitted, which shows hon. Members the scale of the need. If we are to provide a good service, the standard must meet the needs of organisations, and that must be paid for. We made it clear, when the first disclosure fee was announced in 2001, that the service would have to move to a full-cost recovery basis. The Government have stepped in, and we are moving to full-cost recovery in a planned, incremental way that enables organisations to meet the charges, but not all at once. That is a fair system. As I said, the main purpose is to protect children and vulnerable adults, and our feedback is that organisations and the registered body are very happy with the improvements that have been made.

Police

David Rendel: What allowances are paid to (a) Metropolitan police officers and (b) Thames Valley police officers stationed in west Berkshire.

Fiona Mactaggart: Members of any Home Department police force may receive a housing allowance, dog handlers allowance, plain clothes allowance or motor allowance if the provisions of the Police Regulations 2003 are satisfied. In addition, officers in the Metropolitan police force receive London weighting of £1,881 and a London allowance of £1,011 if they were recruited before 1 September 1994, or £4,338 if they were recruited after that date and are not in receipt of housing allowance. Officers in Thames Valley police who were recruited after 1 September 1994 and who are not in receipt of a housing allowance receive a south-east allowance of £2,000.

David Rendel: Given the difference in allowances that the Minister has just announced and given that house prices are often lower in other parts of the country than they are in west Berkshire, it is clear that a considerable number of police officers are recruited and trained by Thames Valley but then move to other police forces. What will the Minister do to ensure that central funds make up to Thames Valley police force the excess costs of recruiting and training a lot of police officers who then move elsewhere?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that because of the operation of the floor in the grants to police in the recent announcement, Thames Valley received more than it might otherwise have expected. Our injection of extra money into police forces such as Thames Valley is proving successful. Thames Valley police force covers both his constituency and mine, and it now has more police officers than at any other point in history. The chief constable is able to use special policing payments—at present 1 per cent., and increasing to 2 per cent.—to deal with the serious problem of retention of police officers in our area.

Drugs

Tom Harris: What plans he has to support communities in the fight against drugs.

Caroline Flint: The Government's drug strategy concentrates on safeguarding communities as one of its four principal aims. Strong communities are at the heart of preventing crime and reducing antisocial behaviour, and are central to the Government's agenda for civil renewal. Drug action teams and crime and disorder reduction partnerships work on a local basis. They should support communities to identify needs and engage with them to find solutions.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 through 39 long sittings, I welcome the Government's commitment to confiscating drug assets and reinvesting the money in those communities, including my own, that have been most hard hit by the drugs trade. Will she reconsider the Government's targets for asset recovery? The website of the Assets Recovery Agency puts the value of the illegal drug trade in this country at £9 billion a year, but the Government's target for total criminal assets recovered by 2004–05 is only £60 million. Is that ambitious enough?

Caroline Flint: The powers are very new and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Assets Recovery Agency has been in place for less than a year. We are on track for this year's target of £45 million, with more than £37 million already confiscated. It is a challenging new area. We are establishing four regional asset recovery units in England and Wales and, in Scotland, the First Minister announced in November that more money would go to communities fighting the misery of crime and drugs. I understand that more details will be provided in the new year. We are trying to make this new policy work and I hope that the pot will grow, because we are trying to ensure that crime does not pay.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister will be aware of the importance of drugs education in reducing illegal drug use and, therefore, drug-related crime. Will she liaise with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills and look at some of the education material that masquerades as drug prevention, some of which is more like an instruction manual for how to inject, or avoid being caught out by one's parents. Will she try to filter out those unsuitable and inappropriate drug publications, so that young people in schools are not exposed to them?

Caroline Flint: Reducing the use of drugs by young people is one of the major parts of our strategy. I am in regular contact with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, and I shall have a meeting shortly to discuss issues concerning young people at risk. We do consider the information that is issued. The FRANK campaign, which was launched this year, has been highly successful, both in terms of the number of people who have accessed information through the website or e-mail and in terms of the activities around the country that have been supported by schools. We have also launched Blueprint with the Department for Education and Skills and others, which will establish over several years what is effective in terms of education on drugs. We have to have information that is informative and useful, and warns people of the dangers. However, we also have to recognise that young people may be using drugs and we have to reduce the harm from that, too.

John Mann: Effective drugs treatment, especially for heroin, works both in prison and in the community. As the Home Office drastically underestimates the saving to the taxpayer of effective drugs treatment, will the Minister consider initiating new research so that we can find out what is working and, especially, the saving to the taxpayer from what is working?

Caroline Flint: We already know from research that every £1 spent on treatment saves the criminal justice system £3, so we should all pay attention to that figure. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, to support treatment, money needs to be put in and that a record amount is going into such programmes. We constantly consider research; for example, we are not just waiting until the end of the criminal justice intervention programme but are looking at it as it develops. We can thus obtain a speedy response about what is working and passport it across, and understand what might not work in certain areas. Research has been carried out in prisons, but more could be done and we are trying to find better ways of assessing the impact of drug treatment in prison. What evidence there is, however, shows that drug treatment in prison reduces re-offending.

Humfrey Malins: The drug that causes the most damage to communities and that results in the most crime is, of course, alcohol. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we need to put a stop to the huge rise in binge drinking by normally law-abiding teenagers, which causes so much damage to their health and to their communities and takes up an enormous amount of police time. Would not one remedy be for the Government to ask the courts to be much more robust and much tougher when considering the grant or renewal of licences to the sorts of clubs and pubs that all too often, by their aggressive marketing policies, appear to encourage the behaviour that we all want to control?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I have spoken in other forums about the link between alcohol and drugs. If one meets a drug user who says "I'm off the crack, but I'm still an alcoholic", one needs to take heed.
	Earlier in questions, it was pointed out that the strategy on alcohol abuse will be available in the new year—in February, I understand. The police, local authorities and courts not only need to be mindful of the impact of binge drinking but to get the message across in schools and to our young people about the dangerous outcomes that can result and about being completely unable to cope after taking huge amounts of alcohol. We need to look into the matter, to ensure that licences work and that those who sell alcohol, whatever the venue, take some responsibility for their actions.

Road Safety

David Kidney: What guidance he gives to police forces on the priority to be attached to road traffic law policing.

Caroline Flint: Both the first national policing plan, for 2003–06, and the current plan, for 2004–07, specifically expect the police to give attention to effective road policing, to contribute to the achievement of the road safety strategy, and to include in local plans strategies for reducing road deaths and injuries. We take that aspect of policing seriously, which is why we plan to get it across to all police forces.

David Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that although safety cameras at dangerous locations are saving lives, there is also great value in police officers patrolling our roads, visibly enforcing road traffic laws? Will she ensure that national guidance reflects that great value?

Caroline Flint: The safety camera scheme is having an impact and will continue to do so. The results from the two-year pilot of the scheme in eight areas show that, on average, the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites has gone down by 35 per cent. I know that will be heartwarming news for my hon. Friend, as he is co-chair of the all-party transport safety group.
	We take seriously the involvement of police officers; a visible police presence is important. We have also considered whether other people can be engaged in such work, which is why some powers have been provided for community support officers. We shall also be working with the Highways Agency to ensure that it can deal with the management of roads at accident scenes while the police get on with finding out what happened and with following up any criminal action. Those are all important parts of ensuring that road safety enforcement works effectively.

Nick Gibb: Given that we have some of the safest roads in Europe, should not far greater priority be given to putting police officers on to our streets, rather than on to our motorways?

Caroline Flint: Such matters are for police forces to determine in their areas, but I do not think that it is an either/or issue. We must ensure that we use the technology that is available. On average, a police officer using automatic number plate recognition technology makes 110 arrests a year, compared with 10 a year without the technology. That is making the best use of 21st century technology and making sure that we put police where they are needed: on our streets and in our communities.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Dave Watts: How many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued since their introduction.

Hazel Blears: ASBOs were introduced in England and Wales from 1 April 1999. The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued in England and Wales at all courts from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2003 is 1,337.

Dave Watts: I have been meeting police and magistrates in St. Helens to discuss antisocial behaviour. Does my hon. Friend agree that some magistrates courts and some police forces clearly do not give ASBOs the serious attention that they should? Will she talk to the Lord Chancellor about how to make the policy more effective in future?

Hazel Blears: I understand that six ASBOs have now been granted in my hon. Friend's area, and there are plans to make sure that more of those who commit antisocial behaviour are targeted in future. He is right to say that all parts of the criminal justice system, including the police and the courts, need to take the agenda seriously; that is precisely what we are working on. I am delighted that, for the first time, the Magistrates Association has issued sentencing guidelines on antisocial behaviour, so that there is consistency in the sentencing process. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, increasingly, police, local authorities and the courts are taking the tackling of antisocial behaviour seriously, because it is the public's top priority.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that ASBOs are failing to work in the villages around York? Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Moor have been made to pay £14,000 this year, rising to £16,000 next year, for private security guards to assist the police in tackling antisocial behaviour. Surely that is privatisation by the back door, and totally unacceptable.

Hazel Blears: I do not accept for a moment that ASBOs are failing. The hon. Lady should take a look at Leeds, where 66 interim ASBOs were obtained over the course of a weekend to reclaim an estate that was completely out of control. She should come to my Salford constituency, where we now have more than 50 ASBOs, 25 of which were obtained on conviction after the new powers were brought in—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) put a question to the Minister; she must allow the Minister to reply and not butt in.

Hazel Blears: We like to start off gently, so we start with an acceptable behaviour contract; perhaps we should have one of those in relation to our proceedings. By using the range of tools available—acceptable behaviour contracts, ASBOs and parenting orders—local authorities and the police can successfully tackle antisocial behaviour, which is an extremely important issue to the people whom we represent.

John Smith: Just a thought: perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, should consider issuing antisocial behaviour orders from time to time. What about the problem that we have with our local authority, Conservative-controlled Vale of Glamorgan council, which refuses to co-operate in the issuing of antisocial behaviour orders, even when residents demand them to solve the most difficult problems on some of our most difficult estates?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend knows that, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there is a duty on local authorities and the police to co-operate. Those authorities have a responsibility to work together to tackle such issues. We in Government have put on the statute book a range of tools for local authorities to use in tackling those problems, and we are determined that they will be encouraged to use the tools available and tackle deep-seated problems in our communities. That is why we have the Together action plan, Trailblazers, the Together Academy, bringing practitioners together, and the Together ActionLine, to make sure that we can all tackle the problems together.

Graham Brady: Does the Minister accept that sometimes, by barring offenders from the place where they commit offences, the effect of ASBOs can be to move them to another community, where they can cause serious problems that did not previously exist?

Hazel Blears: The evidence shows that displacement does not occur as a result of ASBOs. With such innovative legislation, it is important that there should be exclusion areas around the place where people are allowed to go. If they breach that, they can get a custodial sentence, which is increasingly happening. We have included in the Act a provision to widen the exclusion area from the area where the offences were committed so that the problems of displacement do not occur. The legislation is innovative and forward looking, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Jabez Foster: Nigel Barry, the antisocial behaviour officer of Hastings borough council, tells me that one of the problems is the criminal test that is being applied to the obtaining of ASBOs. Does my hon. Friend intend to restore the balance of probabilities evidential test, as was originally intended, so that such orders can be more easily obtained?

Hazel Blears: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I reaffirm and put it on record that the antisocial behaviour order is a civil order. Its rules of evidence are governed by civil rules of evidence, which means that we can use professional evidence. Local people do not have to stand up and be intimidated and harassed, as they have been. The evidential requirement for proof is the highest standard. These matters are serious, and it is acceptable to have the highest standard of proof, but at the same time we must retain the civil rules of evidence so that victims and witnesses can be supported when they come forward and make the case.

Prisons

Gareth Thomas: If he will make a statement on his assessment of likely changes in the prison population over the next five years.

Paul Goggins: The prison population is expected to grow over the next five years, which is why the number of prison places will be increased to 78,700 by 2006. At the same time we anticipate that a greater use of community penalties will reduce the number of less serious offenders who are given a custodial sentence.

Gareth Thomas: Given the fact that the vast majority of prisoners go on to reoffend once released, what assurances can my hon. Friend give that those worrying increases in the prison population will not affect the ability of the Prison Service to carry out rehabilitation programmes to stop reoffending?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right that some people who leave prison do go on to reoffend. We place emphasis on improving education in prisons and making sure that there is a better connection to Jobcentre Plus so that people leaving prison stand a better chance of getting into a job. We must ensure that when people leave prison they can adopt a lifestyle that means they do not have to return to crime.

Nigel Evans: Does the Minister accept that if someone is arrested for a first offence for burglary, the chances are that it is not their first offence but merely the first time that they have been caught? Is the Government's policy, therefore, for first-offence burglars to go to prison? If so, what assessment has he made of the extra places needed for that?

Paul Goggins: The court can deal only with the offences before it; it cannot second-guess the crimes that an individual may have committed. In the light of the information before it and the offence of which the person has been convicted, the court must choose the penalty deemed appropriate for that individual.

Hilton Dawson: Is it not a shocking fact that 25 young people have died in young offenders institutions over the past 13 years? Is it not time that the Government made a principled stand and arranged for all children to come out of custody?

Paul Goggins: Like Members on both sides of the House, I deeply regret the death of any young person in custody, or of anybody in custody. The Prison Service is working mightily hard to reduce the incidence of people taking their own lives or engaging in self-harm. The use of custody for juveniles has fallen in the past year by about 13 per cent. as we have developed intensive and appropriate programmes for young people in the community. However, some young people commit extremely serious offences, and for their sake and because of the need to protect the public they sometimes need to be in custody.

Speed Cameras

Hugo Swire: How many prosecutions have been brought as a result of speed cameras in Devon and Cornwall since cameras were first introduced.

Caroline Flint: Cameras were first used in Devon and Cornwall in 1992. The latest year for which data are available is 2001. In that period there were 22,902 prosecutions for speeding offences detected by camera.

Hugo Swire: In the run-up to Christmas everyone is interested in road safety. In her earlier answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) I think that the Minister added to the general confusion surrounding speed cameras by overstating their importance. When I recently asked the Secretary of State for Transport about SPECS digital speed cameras, which, as far as I am aware, we do not have yet in Devon and Cornwall, he said that the revenue from the cameras went to cover the cost of their operation, with all surplus moneys going to the Treasury.
	That seems to be the case in some parts of the country but not in others. Chief constables in some areas say that speed cameras are not an effective way of policing, and in some areas revenue is reserved by the chief constable and in other areas by the Treasury. Is not the real case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.

Caroline Flint: Devon and Cornwall want the cameras because they joined the scheme in October 2002. They did not have to join the scheme, but they did so. That must say something about why they want the cameras. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), we must use the latest technology and police officers to tackle offences on our streets and roads. There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence. When people are speeding or not driving at the appropriate speed according to the conditions, they can affect lives. That is what needs to be dealt with. That is why the scheme is so popular, that is why police forces want it, and that is why they want the resources to assist them in dealing with road safety.

Points of Order

John Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 4 December I received from the Secretary of State for Transport an answer to a written question of which I had given the Department prior notice, in which I sought to clarify what a specific piece of legislation stated in relation to car parking fines—an issue that I have tested successfully in court. As I have not received an answer concerning what the law is in relation to private operators of local authority car parks fining or attempting to fine people, what advice would you give me, Mr. Speaker, as to how to clarify what the law of the land is?

Mr. Speaker: I would strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to go to the Table Office and persevere, to make sure that he gets the reply that he is looking for.

Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention and that of the House to the parliamentary convention whereby one Member advises another when he or she visits another Member's constituency? In particular, may I draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), also known as the Leader of the Opposition, visited my constituency over the weekend without having the courtesy to let me know? My constituents were quite happy to welcome him—indeed, most of them were pretty oblivious to his visit—but they were surprised that he offered no apology for the damage that he did as Employment Secretary, which led to increasing unemployment in the area, or for the crime that took place as a result of that damage when he was Home Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: I replied in depth to a similar point of order made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and I urge all hon. Members to read that in Hansard, where it is recorded for the benefit of every hon. Member.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Wednesday I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of hospital-acquired infections, which kill more people every few months than died in New York on 9/ll. One would normally be gratified if within a couple of days the Government had come out with a policy response—except that the Secretary of State for Health chose to announce his new policy for dealing with this terrible problem on the "Today" programme on Friday, a day when the House was not sitting, and does not appear even to have tabled a written ministerial statement today. Would you advise me whether you have received any request from the Secretary of State to come to the House to give Members an opportunity to question him on that policy to establish whether it is, as I hope, a substantive contribution to one of the most serious issues facing our constituents, or whether it is, as I fear, another ineffective gesture? Will you confirm this is an issue of immense importance that should be treated not as the NHS's dirty little secret but as a dirty great issue that is of concern to us all?

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me reply to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
	I recall the right hon. Gentleman raising the matter, which is obviously important to him. I shall not be drawn into the argument, but when a Minister has an important matter to announce, I expect it to be announced in the House. Tomorrow is Health questions, when the right hon. Gentleman may catch my eye.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not following my usual practice of giving your office notice of a point of order.
	It may have been brought to your attention that in the Scottish press this morning there is much discussion of the issue of certification of Bills, as to whether they pertain simply to England or to Britain as a whole. I do not wish to make any party point of this, because it was raised quite properly by the Leader of the Opposition on his visit to Scotland, but I raised this question with Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd many years ago, and he said benignly that he and his office would consider the matter. Well, I suspect that they are still considering it.
	My point of order is this. In the light of what is said in the Scottish press this morning, and in the light of what the Leader of the Opposition has said in Scotland—he is quite entitled to say it—I ask that, after consideration, there should be some statement from the Speaker's Office saying how practical or otherwise it is. I do not ask for an immediate answer; I merely hope that the consideration that Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd began will be brought to some kind of fruition.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the hon. Gentleman that I have a responsibility to certify Bills that relate exclusively to Scotland. I hope that that is of some help to him.

Eric Forth: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), Mr. Speaker. Do you share my frustration that on the wireless this morning we heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry answering questions about consumer credit, and on the Order Paper today under written ministerial statements, I find that very matter: "consumer credit, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry"? Why do Mr. Humphrys and Mr. Naughtie get to question the Secretary of State on the radio, while we do not get the same opportunity here in this Chamber? Something is going badly wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it really is time that a grip was got on the matter, so that we stop this appalling habit of Secretaries of State and Ministers answering questions on the radio, but refusing to come here to answer them in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman brings to my attention a matter in relation to which Ministers are clearly acting within the rules of the House. A written statement has been made, and I have no other powers in this matter.

Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker. In the light of your reply, would it be impertinent to ask whether your office was approached on the question of certification in relation to the proceedings of the House on foundation hospitals? Was the Speaker's Office ever asked for a ruling on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should remember my words. I referred to Bills relating exclusively to Scotland, and I do not think that foundation hospitals featured in a Bill relating exclusively to Scotland—far from it.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reflect on the reply that you have just given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? Surely, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, like the Secretary of State for Health on Friday, answered questions on the radio before a statement had been made to Parliament. I thought that a statement to Parliament should be made first, before a statement to the news media.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important for us all to remember that the idea of having written statements, on which you have expanded several times, was that it would regularise a habit of tabling written questions that were planted. However, it will be difficult for the House if people use the arrangement as a means of avoiding making statements that should be questioned. I know that you would deprecate that, and I hope that that will be made clear.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that the health statement and the statement on trade and industry that have been mentioned are two different matters. On the health statement, I repeat that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) had expressed deep concern as early as Wednesday about the matter to which he referred. I would hope that a Minister would come before the House and not only make a statement but give the House an opportunity to question it. On the other matter, a written statement was given to the House. Therefore, as a custodian of the rules, I can say that there has been no breach of rules. If the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) feels that this matter should be tightened up, it is up to her and others to take it before the appropriate Committee.

Eric Forth: Further to the previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, I think that that is a very helpful ruling on your part. Without it, surely Ministers could start to take refuge in hiding behind the written ministerial statement procedure, knowing that they could not be questioned in the House. If are not very careful, Ministers could see that procedure as some sort of substitute for making a proper statement here and subjecting themselves to questioning. I am sure that you will want to make it clear that you would not expect them to use that dodge.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad that my replies are helpful; I would only hope that the points of order will be helpful.

BILL PRESENTED

Housing

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Reid, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Paul Boateng and Mr. Peter Hain, presented a Bill to make provision about housing conditions; to regulate houses in multiple occupation and certain other residential accommodation; to make provision for home information packs in connection with the sale of residential properties; to make provision about secure tenants and the right to buy; to make other provision about housing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 11].

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (Programme)

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the programme order of 17th December 2002 shall be varied as follows:
	Consideration and Third Reading
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order (Consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
	3. Proceedings on Consideration on the first day shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
	4. Proceedings on Consideration on the second day shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement on that day.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day.
	6. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the following order: New Clauses standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown, remaining New Clauses, remaining proceedings on the Bill.
	As the House will know, the Bill has received detailed scrutiny in Committee, both in its initial three-week consideration, and later, in the two weeks when it was recommitted so that the new provisions that we sought to introduce to cover the removal of the Crown's immunity from planning controls and some further provisions to improve the system of compulsory purchase could be considered. Recommital meant that, in total, the Bill was debated for some 55.5 hours in Standing Committee. I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated in consideration of the Bill for their constructive contributions.
	Anxious as I am to make progress on the substantive rather than the procedural aspects of the debate, I should respond to the observations that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made last week in his point of order, in which he complained about lack of notice on the amendments relating to planning contributions. The hon. Gentleman acts as though this is a dark plot to spring the amendments on him, but it is the end of a process that began back in December 2001, when we consulted on four options for reforming planning obligations. Our preferred option was the tariff. In July last year, having received and considered more than 500 responses to that consultation, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced that although the objectives of the tariff proposal were widely welcomed by a majority of respondents, many could be delivered without legislative change.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: Of course—how can I resist giving way to my former opposite number?

Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister tell us how much of the Bill is in the original form in which it received its Second Reading in this House?

Keith Hill: The greater part of the Bill remains in its original form—subject, of course, to sensible amendments, many of which were made in the light of sensible representations on the part of the loyal Opposition. Additions to the Bill were properly debated and scrutinised on its recommittal. We are now bringing forward new material that I will try to deal with in the course of this short debate.

Eric Forth: Who decides what is sensible?

Keith Hill: Members of the House of Commons when they vote on the provisions of the Bill: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would entirely agree with that.
	Work continued on the issues, especially in the light of the many representations that we continued to receive. We continued to explore how to offer developers and local authorities a straightforward way in which to shorten the time taken on negotiations. The proposals are a development of our earlier consultation about the tariff—they are nothing new; and they are optional, not mandatory.
	I announced our proposals in a written statement to the House and published the consultation document on 6 November. In both I explained that we intended to take enabling powers in the Bill. I made a particular point of ensuring that the Opposition were in immediate receipt of the consultation document. If the hon. Member for Cotswold and his Liberal Democrat counterpart, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), happened to miss my statement and the consultation document, perhaps they had a chance to read about it in their daily newspapers. The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Times covered my announcement extensively, explaining that we intended to legislate, what we intended to legislate for, and that the detail of the proposals would be subject to further discussion. I do not know what the weekend reading matter of the hon. Member for Cotswold might be, but I am sure that, as a chartered surveyor, he takes the opportunity to catch up with specialist publications such as Property Week, Estates Gazette, Regeneration and Renewal and Housing Today, all of which made it clear that we intended, as I said on 6 November, to take enabling powers in the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Of course, I read all those publications avidly, because I try to get into them as often as possible. However, what the Minister says is a travesty. Although we knew in principle that the new clauses were on the way, until we saw them in detail there was no possibility of our being able to table counter-amendments. The Minister sat on the matter for a month and tabled the amendments just two days—not even two full days—before all amendments had to be in or end up being starred and therefore unable to be debated. That is a manipulation of parliamentary procedure and a sloppy way of carrying on.

Keith Hill: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's protestations, he succeeded in tabling no fewer than 20 amendments to two new clauses, so it appears that he did not find the process of responding to the possibly late tabling of the new clauses a particularly arduous process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Although I do not have an entire ministerial team behind me, I was up very late into the night drafting amendments to try to ensure that the Minister and Government did not get away with it.

Keith Hill: I do not want to take away from the assiduousness of the hon. Gentleman, but his amendments' redolence of the midnight oil means that, unfortunately, I shall have to reject quite a lot of them.
	The consultation document invited views on the general principles of reform. It was clear that we intended to legislate by making provision for a new optional planning charge that will give developers a choice between the current negotiated approach and the alternative of paying a predetermined fixed amount. I want to make it clear that we will publish the results of the consultation and our response to the points raised, as well as more detail on the form that the regulations will take, in order to inform the debates in the other place during January.

Paul Beresford: The Minister will be aware that, in July last year, the Select Committee condemned most of the draft planning Bill, including the part dealing with tariffs. Considering that it did so on the basis of what had been said by the many people who came before it, and of the many memorandums that it received, would it not be more appropriate for such a delicate issue to be delayed—or at least for the relevant part of the Report stage of the Bill to be put off—until the results of the consultation are in and have been seriously considered by the Government?

Keith Hill: I do not think so. Our earlier consultation received precisely 505 representations on this subject. The broad outlines of the issue have been sufficiently adumbrated up and down the country, although of course we continue to discuss the matter with interested parties. In the circumstances, and in the light of the fact that these are enabling measures which will be subject to further detailed consideration in consultation, guidance and regulation, we feel that this is the right moment to introduce them.
	We intend to issue a second, more detailed consultation document in spring 2004, which will be a draft circular setting out firmer and more detailed proposals. After that second consultation period, we will publish a new, revised circular to replace circular 1/97. I accept that we have shortened the consultation period to nine weeks from the 12 weeks that we usually allow. In this case, the period is shorter because we are looking for broad views on the general principles. As I have said, a further consultation document will set out our proposals in detail, and we expect to consult for longer at that time. In a nutshell, we have decided that we want to take advantage of this rare legislative opportunity to introduce the optional planning charge. Planning Bills are not introduced frequently, and the opportunity might not arise again for years.
	I hope that these explanations will satisfy the House, and the hon. Member for Cotswold in particular. As I have said, the Bill has already enjoyed a lengthy Committee stage, in which there has been ample opportunity for the Opposition to scrutinise all its aspects. Moreover, it is precisely because we recognise that we are bringing new material to it, in the form of three new clauses and four amendments, that we are proposing this motion to increase even further the time available for debate. The programme motion tabled in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House provides that we consider the new material first. It is therefore entirely in the hands of the Opposition to decide how long we need to consider this new material. There will be no knives.
	The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I eagerly anticipate an interesting day and a half of debate, and I hope that we can now move quickly to address the substance of the Bill without any excessive expenditure of energy on procedural wrangles.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
	The Minister is skating on pretty thin ice, considering the chronology of the Bill. I shall go through that in some detail, so that anyone listening to this debate or reading the report of it later can see the mismanagement of Government business that the Bill exemplifies par excellence. The programme motion provides that we shall finish our proceedings at the moment of interruption today, giving us just six and a half hours. Tomorrow, we shall have just two hours on further consideration, giving us a total of eight and a half hours. Points of order and the ministerial statement have taken up half an hour, so we will have in effect only eight hours to debate 23 new clauses and 78 amendments, most of which—certainly the substantive ones—are Government new clauses and amendments. These amendments are very technical and extremely important to the development industry.
	What a way to carry on! I apologise for my point of order last Thursday, which was marginally incorrect. The Bill started its Second Reading on 17 December 2002, which is almost a year ago. The Government rushed it through Second Reading and Committee on a timetable of 12 sittings between 9 and 28 January, which meant that on the first go at this in Standing Committee only 30 clauses out of 90 and only 1 schedule out of six were discussed.
	The Government were not content with rushing the Bill through at that huge pace. The whole thing went to sleep until June, when they introduced an unprecedented recommittal motion to recommit it to Standing Committee. That took place, and despite the fact that we had argued strongly for 12 sittings we were given only eight. Even on the second go, only 29 clauses out of 90 were discussed, and four schedules out of six were not even debated.
	Despite the fact that the Government have had two goes at this legislation in Standing Committee, there are still huge chunks of the original Bill that have never been discussed. On top of that, during the second Standing Committee stage, the Government introduced two new huge portions, which I estimate add about 20 clauses to the existing 90 on important matters to do with Crown immunity and compulsory purchase.
	No sooner had that second Committee finished and while the ink was hardly dry, the Government announced that they wanted to add another huge bit on to the section 106 procedure—the alternative procedure that the Minister has outlined—in the highly complex clauses 1, 2 and 3. Yet we are being allowed only one and a half days for debate on Report—in fact, not even one and a half days. That is totally inadequate. I suspect that at the end of Report stage huge chunks of the original Bill will not have been discussed, and neither will the other new clauses and amendments. I draw hon. Members' attention to the new list of amendments. There are 40 pages of amendments, which include 23 new clauses and 78 amendments. That shows the huge interest of a large number of Members who want to discuss various aspects of the Bill, yet we have this timetable motion. At the very least, we should have two days for Report.
	There is no reason at all why we need to finish at 10 o'clock today. There is no reason why discussion of the Bill should not go on after the moment of interruption. That would allow Back Benchers to present the new clauses that they have tabled and to raise all the issues that pertain to the Bill.
	I must express our serious reservations about what we will discuss today. The Government say that they had a consultation document way back in December and that they had 505 responses. That consultation paper led the Government to conclude that the tariff system was unworkable, yet for some extraordinary reason they have decided to bring it back in these new clauses. Not only is that an extraordinary way to go about things, given that we thought this whole tariff idea had been dropped, but the Government are bringing it back in the middle of their new consultation, which does not end until 8 January. Many experts wonder whether it is possible to subject this whole procedure to judicial review. The Government have introduced clauses not only in the middle of the consultation but at a time when the Treasury-sponsored Barker report is still not available in full. I thank the Minister for acceding to part of my request by ensuring that some of the responses are available on the website. However, we still have not seen the full Barker report, which touches on this matter.
	The new clauses are both wide in scope and vague. I have no doubt that the other place will want to give this whole Bill huge scrutiny. It is reprehensible to bring forward these new clauses in such a vague form and in such a hurry.
	There is no reason why these matters could not have been specified in the Queen's Speech, and subject to a separate Bill.
	We all rely on the planning system in this country, but the Government have ripped up the present system and made the new system even more complicated. Once we have added to that the further complication that will be raised in today's debate, the system will probably be unable to cope.
	These are important matters that touch on all our lives, and not least on the country's economic development, but the timetable only allows us about eight and a half hours in which to discuss them. This is a monstrous travesty of parliamentary procedure.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly.The Minister knows how deeply some of the issues in the Bill concern us in Sutton Coldfield and it worries me that insufficient time has been allocated to them. The Minister was good enough to reply to a late night Adjournment debate about some of those issues in the summer, within minutes of taking up his post. He will therefore know that planning decisions and the way in which they are made is one of the most important issues.
	I am particularly concerned about two matters that the motion may prevent us from discussing. The first is misuse of brown land. I have always suspected that the Minister feels some sympathy for us in Sutton Coldfield where that is concerned. Under current legislation, developers can wilfully misinterpret the definition of brown land. They can knock down large houses with large, mature gardens—I gave the Minister a specific example last summer—and replace two or three of them with enormous blocks of flats. They can increase density in areas where that is wholly inappropriate. I suggested to the Minister that he might like to undertake a journey from Sutton Coldfield to Birmingham, as en route he would see what both he and I would consider proper and legitimate brown-land development. But I fear that the wilful misinterpretation that I have described cannot be discussed adequately in our debates.
	The second issue is that of appeals. Under current legislation, a developer whose application is turned down by a planning committee can appeal if he can persuade the appeal authorities that he has been denied the opportunity of proceeding with his development. The problem is that when a developer is given permission under the current legislation—even when the planners would have preferred not to give permission, but the planning department believes that it must do so under the legislation—my constituents have no right of appeal.
	When the matter was discussed at length in Committee, the Government's response was that it was an extremely difficult issue, that they would think about it, but that they had no plans to act. If more time were available today, we might have had an opportunity to consider ways of redressing the balance more in favour of our constituents and less to the advantage of developers. It might, for instance, have been possible to argue that when a large number of local people object to a decision in favour of a developer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can advance these arguments at a later stage. We are discussing the programme motion, which is very tightly and strictly drawn.

Andrew Mitchell: I am most grateful for that guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I am about to bring my remarks to a conclusion. If this programme motion were more extensive—if it gave us greater opportunity to raise such points—the very important issues of appeals, and of the current injustice affecting my constituents and the developers, could be addressed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that I argued very hard in Committee for our amendment on this issue. Indeed, I tabled new clause 9, which would have achieved precisely what his constituents are asking him to achieve, but because of the constraints of the timetable motion that we are discussing it will not even be discussed. That is yet another example of why the timetable motion is inadequate.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. The timetable motion is so tightly drawn that his excellent new clause, which I fully support, cannot be discussed. That is a cause of dismay to my constituents, who will of course hold the Government absolutely to account for not enabling my hon. Friend's new clause to be debated.
	I draw my remarks to a close by making one final point. I have yet to decide whether to vote in favour of, or against, the programme motion, so I shall listen with great care to the Minister's response. He has been most helpful. He has agreed to visit my constituency and to take tea with me and others to discuss these very matters, and I look forward to that occasion. There is no more important issue in Sutton Coldfield than this one, and the question of whether I shall support the programme motion will depend on the Minister's response.

Matthew Green: I am relieved to hear that the Minister is so worried about losing votes these days that he is offering to take tea with Conservative Members to ensure that they vote with him on programme motions. Unlike Conservative Front Benchers, I shall not express indignation. The Bill spent a long time in Committee—some 55½ hours, as the Minister said—and virtually all its substantive elements were covered at one time or another.
	If we had considered the Bill on Report immediately after last January, I, too, would have argued against the programme motion, because the way in which business was conducted in Committee at that time was appalling. The Bill was simply pushed through and there was no real attempt to have a debate. However, the new Ministers have taken a completely different, much more welcome and open approach during our recent Committee proceedings. There were no knives, and we were able to deal with all the substantive business with which the Government and the Opposition wanted to deal. Again, there are no knives in this programme motion—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he just said? In view of what I said about the number of clauses and schedules that were not discussed in either Committee, his observation that we were able to deal with all the Government's and the Opposition's business is simply not true.

Matthew Green: I will clarify what I said. Because of talks conducted through the usual channels, we were able to move up the order those elements that we considered most important so that we could discuss them. That is a very agreeable and sensible way forward. Frankly, many clauses would not have detained the Committee because they were minor or required no amending; indeed, no one indicated that they wanted to speak against them.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman may be aware of amendment No. 26, which is on today's amendment paper but was not reached in Committee, even though it deals with a very important issue. That clearly demonstrates that we were unable to move everything up the agenda. Indeed, it is quite impossible to move some things up the agenda without moving others down it— even the hon. Gentleman must recognise that. Some planning authorities are very concerned that they will get their consultation process on the local development framework under way, only to find that they have to go through it again.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman may have a point in respect of a particular amendment, but we were able in Committee to discuss many of the new clauses and amendments tabled by both Opposition parties, and to deal with the Government's new clauses.

John Hayes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making a reasonable case, but—notwithstanding the fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—does he think it reasonable that there will be very little time to debate the measures added on Wednesday regarding section 106? These are matters of fundamental importance; surely they concern him just as much as they concern us.

Matthew Green: I understand that there would have been one day for Report but for the introduction of the section 106 measures, which has resulted in the addition of another half-day. Once again, that is reasonable. This is a complex and detailed Bill, but it is not one of high politics. It is a Bill best dealt with in Committee. I am sure that, in the other place, their lordships will pore over it and table many amendments. It is a different sort of Bill from those concerned with foundation hospitals and tuition fees.
	The Government's recent handling of the Bill has been satisfactory; they have placed no knives and allowed us to move around the order. I should like to see such an approach used with other Bills—compared with others Bills that I have experienced during the past year, I find the Government's approach to be satisfactory. I hope that we will get through the business. I suspect that whether we do or not will depend largely on the length of speeches from Conservative Members, the factor that probably had the largest impact in Committee.
	The Liberal Democrats will not be opposing the motion, which we believe gives sufficient time to deal with the major salient points. We would have liked some proposals to be selected, but they were ruled out by the Clerks. With that proviso, we are happy to support the motion.

Sydney Chapman: I shall detain the House for as short a time as possible, and I can do so particularly because I agree almost entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has said. It is worth referring back to the original Bill, which had its Second Reading almost exactly a year ago. We were told by Ministers—not the same Ministers who are on the Front Bench now—that this was an important, fast-track Bill that needed to be on the statute book as quickly as possible. It was rushed through Committee—only 26 out of 90 clauses and only three out of six schedules were examined. Last June, we heard that instead of bringing the Bill to the Floor for Report, the Government were going to send it back into Committee, which was a unique experience in my time in the House since 1970. I note that the Bill now has 117 clauses and nine schedules.
	I disagree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Green). There is not enough time to consider the new clauses and those clauses that were not examined at all during last year's Committee stage. The Government are represented by two courteous, fair and considerate Ministers, and I do not blame them. However, rather than deciding to bring the Bill back to Committee with the intention of adding new clauses on planning contributions, the Government managers should have let the original Bill proceed normally last June. Then, after consulting on planning contributions, they should have proposed a second planning Bill, suitably named, either later in this Session or in the next one.
	I do not believe that fewer than six hours today and two or three hours tomorrow—depending on how long we spend on Third Reading—is sufficient time to deal properly with 117 clauses and nine schedules.
	The Government's latest topical spin phrase is "the big conversation". I say to them that what we badly need in this House is more conversation and more scrutiny of Bills, so that the other place does not have to work overtime to deal with all those matters that cannot be considered tonight.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making a cogent case. He has not only architectural but planning and other professional experience, so he knows a great deal about these matters. Does he, with his long experience in this House, agree that the Report stage of any Bill is the only opportunity for those Members who were not members of the Committee to table amendments and new clauses, so the effect of this timetable will be to squeeze out many of those Members?

Sydney Chapman: I entirely agree, and that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell).
	Returning to what the hon. Member for Ludlow said, it may be that on some clauses there are no party political divisions. I do not know that, but I suspect that in general terms there are no such divisions. However, whether or not any of the clauses are non-contentious and will not divide the parties, they all concern matters that are important to many outside organisations. Planning affects each and every one of us. It is a sensitive issue and we really should have had much more time to deal with these important matters.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend has put his finger on precisely the point. There may not be a political divide, but he has made it clear that 64 of the 90 clauses were not discussed in Committee—that is a phenomenal figure. Many outside professional bodies, in which people earn their living and have a great expertise in these matters, need to see in Hansard what the effect of the clauses will be. They need us to ventilate the issues in the House, and the fact that we are unable to do so today is a retrograde step. The business managers should think again.

Sydney Chapman: I entirely agree, and while I am on that winning streak I shall resume my seat.

Andrew Selous: I wish to express my concern that the programme motion may not allow us to come to new clause 17, tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues. I raise the matter because it is of great concern to my constituents, and it would provide a remedy for the unauthorised development of land by Gypsies and travellers. I have seven such sites in my constituency and feeling is running extremely high among my constituents on this issue. I find it surprising that the Government have not seen fit to deal with the matter in the Bill or to table an amendment, and I am extremely concerned that the time allotted to us today may not allow us to reach this vital new clause.
	The new clause would allow the enforcement of stop notices, preventing the continuing development of sites. At present, people who develop sites illegally are able to play the appeals system until the site is fully developed. I can think of nothing more calculated to cause disharmony between the settled community and the travelling community than such a state of affairs. It is a matter of great regret that the programme motion will very likely not allow us to reach new clause 17, and I am extremely concerned that the Government have not seen fit to propose measures on this subject.

Keith Hill: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall briefly respond to some of the points that have been made.
	I say immediately to the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that, as far as the Government are concerned, there is no reason why the issues of concern to the hon. Gentlemen should not be reached. The Government will certainly not seek to delay the proceedings—it is not in our interests to do so—but of course we shall certainly endeavour, in an entirely proper fashion, to expound our proposals and our responses to the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he had an open mind about how he should vote in the event of a Division on the programme motion.
	As a former deputy Chief Whip, I am not sure that I approve entirely of such an approach, even by an Opposition Member. In an attempt to win him over, however, perhaps I can deal with the issue of scrutiny in Committee.
	I was grateful for the kind remarks from several Opposition Members, and particularly for those from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), and I agree totally with his observation about scrutiny in Committee. Ultimately, the fact is that as a result of the five weeks that we spent in Committee, all the substantive provisions of the Bill were scrutinised. Hon. Members can play this numbers game how they like. The Bill has 117 clauses, but the House ought to be aware that many of them are of a procedural, interpretive and/or technical nature: 47 clauses are of that character; four clauses relate to the slip rule, which is about the correction of errors, on which I have been very broad-minded; 15 clauses are general provisions, regulation-making powers, supplementary or interpretation provisions, repeals or provisions relating to commencement, extent and so on; 19 clauses relate to Wales; and nine clauses simply apply provisions to Scotland and are the same as the English ones in principle and application.
	Today, we are talking about only three new clauses for debate. The remainder of the Government amendments are of a minor and technical nature. I would bet my bottom dollar that the Opposition will not wish to take any length of time to debate our new provisions on tree preservation orders. There are a large number of those, and I shall of course endeavour to describe properly the new provisions. I would be extremely surprised, however, if that large number of amendments were the subject of much discussion.
	The simple fact is that we can play games with numbers however we want to do it, but in this case the numbers bear no relation to reality. I very much hope that we can now get on to the substance of the Bill.
	Question agreed to. Orders of the Day

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
	 — 
	[Ist Allotted Day]

Considered.

New clause 1
	 — 
	Planning Contribution

'(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the making of a planning contribution in relation to the development or use of land in the area of a local planning authority.
	(2) The contribution may be made—
	(a) by the prescribed means,
	(b) by compliance with the relevant requirements, or
	(c) by a combination of such means and compliance.
	(3) The regulations may require the local planning authority to include in a development plan document (or in such other document as is prescribed)—
	(a) a statement of the developments or uses or descriptions of development or use in relation to which they will consider accepting a planning contribution;
	(b) a statement of the matters relating to development or use in relation to which they will not consider accepting a contribution by the prescribed means;
	(c) the purposes to which receipts from payments made in respect of contributions are (in whole or in part) to be put;
	(d) the criteria by reference to which the value of a contribution made by the prescribed means is to be determined.
	(4) The regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—
	(a) except in the case of a contribution to which subsection (3) (b) applies, the person making the contribution (the contributor) must state the form in which he will make the contribution;
	(b) the contribution may not be made by compliance with the relevant requirements if it is made by the prescribed means;
	(c) the contribution may not be made by the prescribed means if it is made by compliance with the relevant requirements;
	(d) a contribution must not be made.
	(5) The prescribed means are—
	(a) the payment of a sum the amount and terms of payment of which are determined in accordance with criteria published by the local planning authority for the purposes of subsection (3) (d),
	(b) the provision of a benefit in kind the value of which is so determined, or
	(c) a combination of such payment and provision.
	(6) The relevant requirements are such requirements relating to the development or use as are—
	(a) prescribed for the purposes of this section, and
	(b) included as part of the terms of the contribution,
	and may include a requirement to make a payment of a sum.
	(7) Development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 36(3).'.—[Keith Hill.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in line 3, at end insert—
	'(1A) Both the payments under section 106 (planning obligations) and the planning contributions will be in the form of the planning condition and therefore both procedures will have the same provisions providing for an appeal to the Secretary of State.'.
	Amendment (c) to the proposed new clause, in line 12, leave out 'consider accepting' and insert 'accept'.
	Amendment (e) to the proposed new clause, in line 18, at end insert
	'but this cannot be wider in scope than the current "necessity test" as currently applied in the section 106 procedure.'.
	Amendment (f) to the proposed new clause, in line 20, at end insert
	'(which where this includes the provisions of a benefit in kind this may not be a higher value than the alternative monetary payment).'.
	Amendment (g) to the proposed new clause, in line 20, at end insert—
	'(3A) The criteria referred to in subsection (3) (d) may amongst other matters set out—
	(a) the charge per dwelling;
	(b) the charge per square metre of all other developments;
	(c) the minimum size of development to which the charge will apply;
	(d) whether different charges will apply to "greenfield" and "brownfield" land;
	(e) the percentage of affordable housing that must be applied to each development;
	(f) that there will not be any R.P.I. escalator attached to these charges.'.
	Amendment (h) to the proposed new clause, in line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment (i) to the proposed new clause, in line 27, leave out paragraph (c).
	Amendment (j) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, at end add—
	'(8) Provided the planning authority have complied with all the regulations relating to planning contributions the Secretary of State may not cause a plan to be rejected or revised on the grounds that the authority have set the charge at too low a level.'.
	Amendment (k) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, at end add—
	'(8) Provision may be made to enable periodic adjustment of the criteria mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (d).But nothing in these regulations will permit any change in the quantum of the planning contribution unless there is a revision of the development plan document in subsection (7) above and any such change will be the subject to full community involvement.'.
	Amendment (l) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, at end add—
	'(8) The Secretary of State will fully reimburse any local planning authority where it can demonstrate that there is a net cost to them in preparing these regulations.'.
	Government new clause 2—Planning contribution: regulations—
	'(1) This section applies for the purpose of regulations made under section (Planning contribution).
	(2) Maximum and minimum amounts may be prescribed in relation to a payment falling within section (Planning contribution) (5) (a).
	(3) Provision may be made to enable periodic adjustment of the criteria mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (d).
	(4) The local planning authority may be required to publish an annual report containing such information in relation to the planning contribution as is prescribed.
	(5) If a document is prescribed for the purposes of section (Planning contribution) (3) the regulations may prescribe—
	(a) the procedure for its preparation and the time at which it must be published;
	(b) the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the Secretary of State may take steps in relation to the preparation of the document.
	(6) Provision may be made for the enforcement by the local planning authority of the terms of a planning contribution including provision—
	(a) for a person deriving title to the land from the contributor to be bound by the terms of the contribution;
	(b) for a condition to be attached to any planning permission relating to the land requiring the contribution to be made before any development is started;
	(c) for the enforcement of a planning contribution in respect of land which is Crown land within the meaning of section 293(1) of the principal Act.
	(7) The regulations may—
	(a) require the local planning authority to apply receipts from planning contributions made by the prescribed means only to purposes mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (c);
	(b) make provision for setting out in writing the terms of the planning contribution;
	(c) make provision in relation to the modification or discharge of a planning contribution.
	(8) The regulations may—
	(a) make different provision in relation to the areas of different local planning authorities or different descriptions of local planning authority;
	(b) exclude their application (in whole or in part) in relation to the area of one or more local planning authorities or descriptions of local planning authority.'.
	And the following amendments thereto:
	Amendment (a), in line 4, at end insert—
	'(2A) But nothing in these regulations shall enable either the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to raise the quantum of the planning contribution once—
	(a) planning permission has been granted;
	(b) that permission remains in force; and
	(c) any condition relating to planning contribution has been agreed with the applicant.'.
	Amendment (c) in line 5, after 'adjustment', insert 'either upwards or downwards'.
	Amendment (e), in line 10, leave out subsection (5).
	Amendment (f), in line 18, at end insert
	'unless the local planning authority certify that the terms of the contribution have been fully met prior to any transfer of title taking place.'.
	Amendment (g) in line 22, leave out from 'made' to end of line 23 and insert
	'at agreed stages of the development;'.
	Amendment (h), in line 34, at end insert—
	'(7A) The Audit Commission will have a specific duty to ensure value for money in any case to which subsection (7) (a) applies.'.
	Amendment (i), in line 37, at end insert—
	'(7A) The planning contribution referred to in subsection (7) (b) must take into account any additional cost which the developer may be required to undertake at the request of any statutory body. If this occurs after the grant of planning permission the applicant will have the right to ask the local authority to reduce the amount of the contribution.'.
	Amendment (k), in line 41, at end add—
	'(c) state the grounds on which a local authority will decline to accept an amount agreed under subsection (2).'.
	Amendment (j), in line 41, at end add—
	'(9) Subsection (8) applies where two or more local planning authorities have prepared joint local development plans under the terms of section 27.
	Government new clause 3—Planning contribution: Wales.
	Government amendments Nos. 21 to 24.

Keith Hill: I want to begin by describing the contents and purposes of new clauses 1 to 3 and amendments Nos. 21 to 24, and then set out the reasons for introducing these new provisions at this time and deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed about them.
	New clauses 1 to 3 and amendments Nos. 21 to 24 will replace sections 106, 106A and 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, as the legal basis for planning obligations. It is worth noting that the new clauses use the term "planning contribution" rather than "planning obligation". The effect of the amendments is to pave the way for the new approach to planning obligations that I announced to the House on 6 November 2003 and on which the Government are consulting.
	A wide range of interests agree that the current system needs reform because it can be slow, uncertain and opaque. The Government's objectives are therefore to provide greater transparency and certainty for all stakeholders in the development. Our proposals also recognise that the ability to use negotiation to tailor contributions to the circumstances of an individual site is important. We want speed and certainty where possible, and flexibility where necessary.
	New clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that will enable local planning authorities to provide for and to accept a planning contribution in relation to the development or use of land in its area. We will publish draft regulations to inform debate in the other place, once we have considered the response to our consultation. The clause allows the contributions to be made by the provision of an amount set by the planning authority, known as "the prescribed means"—in the Government's consultation document the prescribed means are described as a new optional planning charge—by a negotiated agreement, known as "the relevant requirements", or by a combination of the two.
	The regulations may require the local planning authority to set out in a development plan document, or in another document, the types of developments in respect of which they are likely to seek contributions; developments where a contribution by payment of the amount set by a local authority will not be sought; how funds obtained through planning contributions will be used by the local planning authority; and how any contribution will be calculated. The regulations also provide for the developer to state, where a contribution is payable, whether he will pay the amount set by the planning authority or whether he will negotiate. Where the developer has made a contribution by one method, he may not be required to make further contributions relating to the same matters through the other method. The developer will therefore not be required to pay twice.
	In some circumstances, a contribution must not be required by the local planning authority. A contribution made by the "prescribed means"—in other words, the charge—may consist of the payment of a sum calculated in line with criteria set by the planning authority in the development plan document or other document prescribed for this purpose or by providing a benefit in kind, again calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in the development plan document, or a combination of these two.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The fact that the proposals in the new clauses will be an optional alternative to the present section 106 agreement procedures is a critical point. Will the Minister make it clear that that is the case and confirm that nothing in the regulations will enable him, at any subsequent stage, to withdraw the present section 106 procedure?

Keith Hill: To the first question, I give an unequivocal undertaking that the new proposals will be optional. The developer will have the choice. As for the second question, I must say that however important a statutory provision may be, no statutory provision is for ever. It is impossible for any Minister ever to give the sort of undertaking that the hon. Gentleman appears to be encouraging me to give.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Of course a Minister cannot bind his successors. I was asking the Minister to give an absolute assurance that the regulations contain nothing that would give him any powers to abolish the present section 106 arrangements.

Keith Hill: There is nothing in these regulations that would give the Secretary of State powers to abolish the section 106 regulations, subject to the provision that I explained about any future decision. We must recognise the realities and remember that single Administrations, never mind succeeding Administrations, may seek to change their minds in certain circumstances.
	Where contribution is to be made by a negotiated agreement, the agreement must comply with the relevant requirements, and these will be set out in regulations. It is envisaged that, where the contributor opts not to contribute through the prescribed means, the negotiation will be able to cover all the matters that are currently covered.
	New clause 2 sets out the types of matters that regulations providing for planning contributions may contain. Those include specifying the maximum and minimum amounts a planning authority may set as a planning contribution made by the prescribed means, and allowing for periodic adjustment of the criteria for determining the value of planning contributions by the prescribed means—for example, the periodic adjustment could be based on the retail prices index, which would avoid the need for planning authorities to constantly change their documents setting out the planning contribution in order to ensure that the amounts retain their value. The regulations may also require planning authorities to publish an annual report, which could contain information on matters such as how the planning contributions have been implemented, the amounts obtained, and how contributions paid have been used.

Paul Beresford: The Minister said that he was looking for clarity and I agree that the section 106 system should be adjusted. However, a section 106 system will remain, with new tariffs introduced as an option, and it is not clear whether the choice will be made by the applicant or the local authority. There will be methods to vary or change the system according to the type of development that is requested, depending on the land and so on. Now the Minister tells us that under new clause 2 there could be adjustments in the value of the tariff. That sounds like a much more complicated procedure than the previous one, which was adjustable.

Keith Hill: The procedure is really not as complicated as the hon. Gentleman imagines. The developer will face a simple choice: to pay a charge set by the local planning authority, after a public consultation in relation to the character of the site or development; or to undertake a traditional section 106 negotiation. That is a simple and straightforward arrangement. Furthermore, where there is a charge, rather than the local planning authority having to be involved in an elaborate procedure for recalculating the charge, in the light of changing costs, it is suggested—it is merely a suggestion at this point; there is a consultation process—that one means of ensuring that such a periodic adjustment could occur would be to base it on the retail prices index.

David Curry: What would happen when a planning development straddled local authorities or had a major impact on more than one local authority? Would there be a system of pooling? What would happen if two authorities opted for a different system and one decided to stay with the section 106 arrangements while the other decided on the tariff proposal?

Keith Hill: I can provide a straightforward answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question: there is provision for pooling, and we would encourage it where a development straddles two authorities. He raised a serious point about the possibility that local planning authorities might adopt different policies and I cannot offer him a flip answer at present. There is a consultation process and we shall want to look into those matters carefully.

John Hayes: rose—

Keith Hill: I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and the wonderful Deepings.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister.
	I gather from what the Minister said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that he is willing to take advice and to listen to comments on this matter. In two-tier authorities, the county council may have a responsibility for some aspect of local government that it shares with a district authority, or a number of district authorities, each of which may take a different view. The matter could thus be even more complex than my right hon. Friend suggested, because a development could straddle many authorities in one area; it is a question not only of horizontal boundaries but of vertical boundaries between different tiers of authority.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down the path of tierism, which is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. In the example that he cited, county councils will continue to retain planning responsibilities for specific matters, notably waste and minerals. On the whole, however, the material consideration in any planning policy devised by a local planning authority will be the regional spatial strategy. Obviously, no policy will be advanced by a local planning authority that does not take cognisance of the regional spatial strategy, so to that extent, when we are dealing with a possible section 106 negotiation, under the terms that I am attempting to set out for the House, we shall be considering a policy in relation to the development that has already been established in the local plan by the local planning authority, having taken into account all the proper influences to be considered in finalising such a policy.
	It will be in the light of a developer's response to the policy set out for a particular area that the application will be made and the negotiations that we are discussing will take place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Keith Hill: I see that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) wants to get in on the act.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has just raised an interesting issue. What role will the regional planning body and the regional spatial strategy have in the new tariff proposals and, indeed, in the existing section 106 procedure?

Keith Hill: I think that I am right in saying that it is anticipated that the regional planning body will have no direct bearing on the procedures that we are debating. They are essentially for the local planning authority to deal with, subject to the usual scrutiny by the Secretary of State that applies to most planning matters. There is no direct role in the process for either the regional planning body or the regional spatial strategy.

Sydney Chapman: rose—

Keith Hill: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Sydney Chapman: I am trying to save the House time by asking this question now. I cannot determine for sure from reading new clauses 1 and 2 whether a local planning authority will have complete power to decide the spectrum of planning applications in respect of which the planning contributions may be made, or whether the rules or the areas where they apply will be set by the Secretary of State. It might help the House to know the definitive answer to that now.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. Perhaps I can put the matter in perspective by pointing out that it is estimated that no fewer than 98.5 per cent. of planning applications are not subject to a section 106 negotiation. In other words, we are dealing with a minuscule minority of planning applications, albeit the larger applications within the major application umbrella. Having said that, in some circumstances, in relation to a particular site or development, the local planning authority may decide that it will not impose a planning obligation. For example, the local planning authority may well decide that, in respect of a site that has a high level of contamination, where the costs of remediation will be extremely significant, it would be inappropriate to impose any sort of planning charge on the process.
	To give another example, if a site has a multiplicity of owners, the local planning authority might deem the development to be sufficiently complex to discourage it from wanting to impose a planning obligation. However, it will be for the local planning authority to identify the sites and developments on which it will expect the negotiations to take place. In no sense will that be rocket science: such considerations will apply to the sorts of site in respect of which the negotiation takes place now. The House must remember that the point of the new arrangements is to provide all the stakeholders, to use the jargon—the developer, the local planning authority and the local community—with a high level of predictability and transparency about what will occur in terms of charges relating to a particular development.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for that answer, but I remain concerned. The Minister says that 98.5 per cent. of planning applications do not involve section 106 agreements. However, because the measure is a money-raiser for a local planning authority, it might want to extend the area in which it can introduce this alternative to a section 106 agreement. May I have his assurance that, if necessary, the Government will issue regulations ensuring that the present area in which section 106 agreements apply cannot be extended?

Keith Hill: It certainly would not be the Government's intention or desire to permit a manipulation of the existing arrangements. Those are fairly well defined. The considerations that need to be taken into account in relation to a planning obligation negotiation are fairly well understood in the planning community, so to speak. The hon. Gentleman is greatly experienced in these matters and more familiar than I am with the usual considerations that need to be taken into account. We are consulting, initially on the principles of the matter and subsequently on the detail. The Government will play their full part and consider what limitations they want to impose on the process.

Andrew Turner: I have followed with care and interest the Minister's argument and the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). When a negotiation is taking place, it is possible for the applicant's agents to see how the money is to be spent. It might be spent on a school, a road, a work of so-called public art or a social housing obligation, but when money is simply handed over against a tariff to the local authority, there is no knowing what it will be spent on. How do the Government intend to ensure that money that is handed over is spent on such projects, and does not simply release resources to be shifted from the budget where they would have been spent, rather like some people have suggested tuition fees might be, into another budget?

Keith Hill: Or, one might say, into keeping down the council tax, for example. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is extremely important. We have made it clear throughout our consultation and proceedings that we expect the local authority to define in advance the purposes for which the charge will be used, and we propose an annual report that will contain information on how matters such as the planning contributions have been implemented, the amounts obtained and how the contributions paid have been used. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is fundamental that there should be maximum clarity on the matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keith Hill: I could say that I ought to get on with describing the provisions, but as we are in a quasi-Committee stage, I give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).

David Curry: The subject of housing is central to the debate. It is probably true that a majority of social housing is built through planning gain. Would the provision supersede the arrangements whereby, if a developer wishes to build market houses, he must build a certain proportion of social houses or affordable houses as well? If that is the case, what guarantees are there that the planning authority will choose not to put its receipts into social housing, so that the social housing sector might be left with difficult developments while the market housing developer might opt to pay the tariff in order to concentrate on the simpler development?

Keith Hill: It will be open to the local planning authority to define the purposes for which the charge will be imposed. If it were the desire of the local planning authority, that could include an element for affordable housing. Indeed, part of the terms of the charge could be that that element of affordable housing could be provided by means of either a financial contribution or an in-kind provision on site. It goes without saying that it will remain open for local planning authorities to attach the usual conditions on affordable housing to planning permission.

David Curry: If a developer develops a site of a certain size, the rules require a mix of market and affordable housing. Will the proposals remove that requirement and leave planning authorities the discretion to use some of their funds for affordable housing? It is a structural aspect of the system at the moment that the building of market housing triggers the construction of affordable housing.

Keith Hill: The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue of serious concern to which I shall refer later. Let me give him an assurance that no part of the arrangement should impede the extent to which current provisions for affordable housing would be part and parcel of the system for planning permission and developments relating to section 106 negotiations and the proposed charge. The arrangement will simply facilitate the process and make it more transparent and predictable. I propose to deal with that matter in more detail toward the end of my remarks.

John Hayes: rose—

Paul Beresford: rose—

Keith Hill: I see that two further Conservative Members are anxious to intervene. I shall take their interventions on the House's understanding that I will then move on.

John Hayes: The Minister is showing his customary courtesy and generosity. I want to pin him down on what would happen to local authorities if they did not use the money in the way in which he and local people would wish, which was made clear in the earlier description that we heard. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), the Minister said that local authorities would need to make their plans clear and that annual reports would be written on what they had done. However, I understand that there are no sticks—no real sanctions or powers—to oblige authorities to do what they say that they will, in detail or substance.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman needs to understand and frame the new provisions in the general context of the far more open and engaged process in the planning sphere that we anticipate as a result of the Bill. We welcome his presence on the extended Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Conservative Front-Bench team. I do not know whether he is billed as a shadow Secretary of State in that team because there seem to be quite a lot of them. As he has come to these issues only recently, there is no reason why he should know that, as a result of the measure, every local authority will be required to produce a statement of community involvement. It is the Government's desire to ensure that there is maximum community involvement and front-loaded engagement with any planning development or set of planning developments under the measure.
	The hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the possible non-use—I shall not say misuse—of funds arising from the arrangement need to be set in a local, political and electoral context. If the moneys were not used for the purposes for which they were intended, we would all anticipate a strenuous local response, which would exert great local control on the situation. Having said that, we shall have to give serious consideration to the possibility of giving the Secretary of State a reserve power in such circumstances, but that is a matter for consideration and consultation after which we may come forward with firmer proposals.

Paul Beresford: Bearing in mind the Government's reaction to the pooling of capital receipts and redistribution, if there is a local authority, or a group of local authorities, where there has been considerable development, and if this tariff or betterment tax turns into a windfall tax, how sure can the House be, particularly in the light of the Minister's previous answer, that it will not be reflected in either redistribution or reflected directly in the grant to those local authorities in the ongoing years?

Keith Hill: That is a good try on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but there are no intentions along those lines.
	I was saying that planning authorities will need to set out their planning contributions policy in a document. New clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to set out the procedure for preparing and publishing the local planning authority's policy on planning contributions. Where the local planning authority fails to prepare such a document, the Secretary of State will have powers to intervene.
	The ability to enforce any obligation to pay a contribution will be important. Subsection (6) of new clause 2 provides for that. A person who has derived title to the land after a commitment to make a planning contribution has been entered into will be bound by the terms of the contribution. That reflects the provision contained in section 106. There is also the attaching of a condition to a planning permission requiring payment of the planning contribution prior to the commencement of the development. The enforcement provisions may also apply to Crown land where a planning contribution has been agreed in respect of Crown land.
	Subsection (7) of new clause 2 enables regulations to require the planning authority to spend receipts from planning contributions made by the prescribed means—the amount set by the planning authority—on the matters set out in its planning contributions policy, set out in the development plan document or other document. This provides the transparency that Opposition Members have been correctly concerned about so that everyone—in particular those paying the contribution—will know how the contributions will be used. The regulations will set out the mechanism for setting out the terms of the planning contribution in writing.
	Provisions can be made for the modification or discharge of a planning contribution. It is intended that such provisions will be similar to those contained in sections 106A and 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Subsection (8) of new clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to make different provisions for different areas or descriptions of local authorities and also to exclude particular areas or descriptions of local authorities. That power might be used where, for example, a smaller local authority was exempted from having to set prescribed means in its planning contributions policy because it rarely negotiates planning obligations under the existing system.
	New clause 3 applies the planning contribution provisions to Wales. It confers on the National Assembly for Wales the same powers in relation to the planning contribution as the Secretary of State has for England and it substitutes the local development plan for the development plan document as the document in which planning contributions should appear, unless another document is prescribed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: New clause 3 is breaking new ground. In effect, it gives the Welsh Assembly a large tax-raising power. What assurances can the Minister give us that, in devolving this amount of power to the Welsh Assembly, we will not suddenly find that obligations in Wales become much more onerous for developers than obligations in the rest of the United Kingdom, thereby stifling economic growth in Wales?

Keith Hill: I think that the hon. Gentleman went a limited way to salvaging his position by his last observation, but I am rather shocked by his intervention. Why should we expect that the Welsh will abuse the system? That is an outrageous suggestion. We have no reason to believe that the Welsh Assembly will behave in anything other than an entirely proper manner. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 provide that regulations made under the planning contribution provisions will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That means that the House will have the opportunity to see the regulations before they are made.
	Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 provide for the repeal of sections 106, 106A and 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	I come now to our reasons for introducing the proposals now. Planning Bills are few and far between, so we are taking the legislative opportunity that the Bill represents to reform an area of planning policy that stakeholders from all sides agree needs reform. Introducing the amendments now does not preclude a full discussion on how our reforms might work, nor close off debate on the matters raised in the consultation document. I assure the House that we are listening carefully to the interested parties. Already, we have consulted face to face with hundreds of people drawn from local authorities across the country, a diverse range of businesses and their representatives, and those who are interested in the provision of affordable housing, which is the single biggest use of planning obligations. We are encouraging everyone to respond to the consultation and we will proceed by means of deliberation and discussion throughout. We will ensure that we put as much information as possible before Parliament as it considers our proposals.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been generous. His parliamentary answer to me said that, in the first lot of responses to the original consultation, by far the majority of developers opposed a tariff system. If his second consultation shows that by far the larger number of respondents, other than local authorities, oppose the proposals, will he withdraw them?

Keith Hill: I could not possibly give that undertaking, but looking at the responses to the tariff proposals, the proportion within the industry was about 60:40 in favour. We have begun our discussions, and our impression is that we are receiving a positive interest on the part of the industry, the housebuilders and developers, in the proposals. I have no reason to expect a negative response on these matters. We are a listening Government, but if we think it right, we will proceed with our proposals, and we should do no other. I can tell from the hon. Gentleman's body language that he agrees with me, and in the unlikely event that he were ever in my position, he would do exactly the same thing.
	I want to deal with two concerns that have been raised about the proposals. The first is that this is in some way a tax on development. That is untrue. The charge will have to relate to planning matters, as the existing system of negotiated obligations does now. Under our proposals, the level of the planning contribution can be set out in advance and in public, which will allow it to be tested. New clause 2 ensures that we have a power to require that the charge be applied only to the matters identified in the local authority's planning contributions policy, and the developer can opt not to pay the charge at all, but to negotiate over what level of contribution to offer.
	The second concern, which has already rightly been raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, is that in some way the new arrangements might undermine provision of affordable housing. I recognise that that is a matter of importance to Members on both sides of the House. The Government are determined to drive forward their agenda for mixed, socially inclusive and sustainable communities. Our consultation document invites views on the best way to provide affordable housing within the reforms.
	The House will know that the Government have also issued a consultation on changes to their policy on planning for housing. Our proposed provisions place a new and vital emphasis on planning for the housing needs of the whole community. Planning obligations are one tool that local authorities can use to develop the housing that they need. The House will note that we are not precluding what is currently possible in our new approach. I draw attention to the possibility, which we have provided for, that the charge could be sought either in kind or in cash. One can draw parallels between this and the two main ways in which affordable housing is currently provided through section 106. Precisely how the new arrangements can best be used to deliver our affordable housing objectives is something that we will want to work through as part of our consultation, and we are already talking inside the Government and beyond about how that can be achieved.

Jim Cousins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Keith Hill: How can I resist my hon. Friend—a lone voice from the Government Benches?

Jim Cousins: It is kind of my right hon. Friend to refer to me in that way.
	Can my right hon. Friend explain what he means when he refers to a contribution in kind? Might such a contribution mean that some of the housing to be created in a housing development could be dedicated for the use of a social housing provider?

Keith Hill: If I may say so, my hon. Friend is a lone but valued voice on the Government Benches.
	Of course, it will be open to the local planning authority to stipulate in setting the terms of the charge the ways in which the developers will be expected to deliver on that charge, if it were to be a contribution in kind. It will be open to the local planning authority to indicate whether it would expect an element of contribution in kind. I fully expect the authority to set out in some detail the terms of that in-kind provision. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend.

David Curry: I see from the body language of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that he, like me, feels a pall of incomprehension descending on him. What is the difference between a tariff delivered in kind and an old section 106 agreement?

Keith Hill: There is none in principle, but it would certainly be open to a local planning authority to stipulate that its charge could be delivered in the form of a financial contribution, a contribution wholly in kind or a contribution that is partly in kind and partly financial. That is matter for the authority to set out as part of the charge.

David Curry: In that case, a charge defined as in kind and not in cash might well refer to x number of affordable houses or x provision in education or community centres. Is that what the Minister means by "in kind"? Is he saying that the charge would specify the amount to be delivered and that, while section 106 involves a negotiation, the amount would be clearly set out? Is that the difference?

Keith Hill: The right hon. Gentleman has it. Again, as part of the clarity, transparency and predictability of the arrangement, such a stipulation could be made as part of the charge set by the local planning authority, but of course, whether the developer takes that path or the traditional negotiated path remains a matter of choice.
	With those explanations and reassurances, I commend Government new clauses 1 to 3 and Government amendments Nos. 21 to 24 to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I rise to speak in support of all the amendments standing in my name in respect of Government new clauses 1 and 2.
	As I did not declare in the debate on the programme motion my interests as stated in the Register of Members' Interests, I should like to do so now: I am a fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and I have property interests that are not currently likely to benefit from the provisions, but may conceivably do so in future.
	Having got that off my chest, I shall now seek to press the Government on a number of matters, as we are entering a very wide field in debating the new clauses. Despite the Minister's assurances, if what is proposed is not carefully controlled by regulation, it could become a tax by another name. Given that the planning obligations did not have to be published until 1 July 2002, the Government are proceeding with a whole range of changes to the planning system on the basis of information that they have received only since then. The only definitive study on the subject is by John Hennebury of Sheffield university, who, although drawing on information from only 45 local authorities, tells us that the average value of planning applications is £148,000 in the north of England and £753,000 in the south of England. He further says that it is common for negotiations on section 106 agreements to last from one to eight months, but a small number last for up to four years and a very few take five years or more. It would be interesting to see whether the Minister's alternative system will deliver a quicker route to the developer.
	My main concern is that the Government are producing a voluntary alternative that will require planning authorities to carry out a huge amount of work to set it up. The Bill is already exceedingly complex, with a raft of regulations several inches thick. Planning authorities will have enough difficulty in coping with those complexities, but the Minister proposes to lay even more on top by changing the section 106 procedure at a time when many authorities in the south of England are desperately short of planning officers. I would not be surprised if some authorities were simply to grind to a halt as a result. I predict that, far from delivering a quicker, more transparent planning system, the Government will deliver a system that leads some local authorities into chaos.

Matthew Green: I am a little confused. I had understood Conservative policy to be in favour of decentralising powers to local councils, yet, although the proposal gives local councils decision-making powers on what is appropriate in their areas, the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be that that is far too complex a matter for local people to decide, and that it is better decided by the Secretary of State.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is being mischievous. He knows perfectly well that the forthcoming regulations will prescribe exactly how the local authority is to fix the tariff.
	In the absence of my amendment (a), which was not selected, I am pleased that the Minister has categorically confirmed that there will be a voluntary option for developers and that the regulations will in no way withdraw the current section 106 procedure.
	I therefore move rapidly on to amendment (b), which says:
	"Both the payments under the section 106 (planning obligations) and the planning contributions will be in the form of the planning condition and therefore both procedures will have the same provisions providing for an appeal to the Secretary of State."
	The Minister did not deal with appeals. Under the section 106 procedure, there is clearly a right of appeal for a developer who cannot reach agreement with the local authority on, for example, the level of payment. I can see nothing in these measures that provides for such an appeal. Will the Minister clarify that?

Keith Hill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a right of appeal.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is excellent and positive news—we are making great progress.
	Amendments (c) and (d) are straightforward. Amendment (c) would amend paragraph (3) (a) of the new clause, which refers to
	"a statement of the developments or uses or descriptions of development or use in relation to which they will consider accepting a planning contribution".
	My amendment would clarify that by stipulating that they will accept, rather than consider accepting, a planning contribution. The converse of that is in the Government's wording of new clause 1(3) (b), which refers to
	"a statement of the matters relating to development or use in relation to which they will not consider accepting a contribution by the prescribed means".
	I have simply amended that so that it would refer to a statement of the matters relating to development or use in relation to which they "will not accept" a planning contribution. It would therefore be quite clear what they would or would not accept. I would be grateful for the Minister's observations on the re-wording set out in those amendments.
	Amendment (e) is perhaps the most important of the lot. It proposes to insert at the end of line 18:
	"but this cannot be wider in scope than the current 'necessity test' as currently applied in the section 106 procedure."
	I want to spend a little time on this because, if the Minister's assurances that this provision is not simply to be a tax by another name with an ever-widening scope, he must live up to the spirit of my amendments. I would like to outline the grounds for applying a section 106 agreement, and to ensure that the new procedure will cover the same grounds but no wider ones. If that were the case, we could make progress, and I shall seek assurance from the Minister on that matter.
	The following requirements have to be observed in the section 106 procedure: that the planning obligations should deliver
	"high quality, sustainable development . . . continue to provide affordable housing . . . help deliver the physical investment needed to secure high and stable economic growth and higher productivity . . . be more transparent to all stakeholders in the planning process . . . provide an effective mechanism for delivering desirable development without causing delays . . . not impose financial burdens on developers which in themselves deter desirable development; and be sufficiently flexible to reflect the circumstances of individual proposed developments."
	I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that those seven key requirements of the section 106 procedure are to be followed when setting the new tariff procedure.
	The procedure originally set out in section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 involved a necessity test, which stipulated that it was necessary to compensate strictly for the development itself. Case law has widened that definition somewhat, in particular the Tesco case in 1995, which came up with a new de minimis test. That test provided that, if the compensation was in any way related to the development, such action would be in order. However, I do not see anything in the new clauses that would give us the clarity that developers need, and I make a plea to the Minister that, when he introduces the regulations, he should clarify exactly what can be expected from the current section 106 procedure and from the new tariff procedure. That would greatly help developers when they come to negotiate or pay the tariffs.

Andrew Turner: I am being well educated by hon. Members on both Front Benches in this debate, and I thank them for that. Will my hon. Friend assist me by repeating the words in the necessity test, because I am rather surprised that it could be interpreted as requiring the provision of social housing?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, the provision of social housing is dealt with in the former Department of the Environment circular 1/97. That, too, forms part of the section 106 payment. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with that matter when I reach amendment (g) and, in particular, its reference to paragraph (e). I shall also be asking the Minister some questions on that point.
	It is important for developers to have clarity on what is required from this new tariff.
	My amendment refers to the statement in the new clause that the charge must be revised at regular intervals. That should include the ability to revise the charge upwards and downwards. We do not know what the economic situation is likely to be in the future. We hope that the rate of this country's performance will continue to grow, but supposing it does not and the economy goes into recession, it would be nonsense to have a system that ratcheted up section 106 or tariff payments just when we were going into recession. We must consider that carefully.
	My amendment (f), which is important, deals with the question of benefits in kind. I should like to quote the report on affordable housing that the Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions published in the 2002–03 Session. I think that the Government have an inflated idea of how much section 106 or tariff payments will yield. In paragraph 41, the report states:
	"The supply of affordable housing through planning agreements is reliant on the development of profitable private housing. Many submissions argued that there was only a limited amount that could be demanded from developers in planning gain if their developments were to remain viable. There are increasing demands on developers to contribute to a wide range of 'planning gains' including transport infrastructure, social and community facilities and schools."
	We need to know precisely what the Government have in mind when they say that the payment may be made in kind. Should the value be the same as if it was a cash payment, or will it be less? How will affordable housing be provided?

David Wright: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It may be relevant to refer to some of the problems with affordable housing, and I shall do just that when I have given way to the hon. Gentleman.

David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that one of the major problems is the fact that many local authorities do not carry out comprehensive housing needs and housing market assessments? They fail to translate calculations on the number of new homes that are needed into their planning strategies. They need to do that to make the system work. It is no good laying the blame at the Government's door. Local authorities need to get a grip of the issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Under the present system, before the Bill becomes an Act, the Government lay down numbers in the regional planning guidance, and county councils negotiate with the authorities in their area or the unitary authorities, which are required to build that number of houses. Many authorities up north and, I suspect, in the hon. Gentleman's area do not achieve the numbers that they set out in their own plans: that is, if they have got a development or structure plan. There needs to be a much closer correlation between the numbers set out in the local structure and unitary plans. If those numbers are in the plans, they should be achieved. Some authorities in the south build more than they set out in their plans, which is what we all want to see, because if they build more housing, they will provide more affordable housing.

Matthew Green: Not all local authorities struggle to build the number of houses that they are allocated. Sometimes the allocation is too small. In the South Shropshire authority there is a great need for a larger housing allocation, as has been identified by a housing need survey carried out last year. I am hopeful that the Minister will deal with that problem. I would not want the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to leave the impression that the problem with housing numbers is purely one of local authorities being asked to build too many. The problem can be the other way round.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), he would have heard me deal with exactly that point. Hansard will bear that out. Sometimes local authorities want to build more than the number of houses specified in the plan, and I see nothing wrong with a plan providing for greater numbers than are set out in the regional planning guidance, provided that it is carefully worded.
	I do not want to be sidetracked too much, as there may be other opportunities to discuss this issue. We should not concentrate entirely on numbers, although they are important, and the Bill will change the procedure completely: the arrangements will be set out by the regional planning body in the regional spatial strategy and will, I understand, be more or less binding for each authority. Whether authorities will be able to deliver is, of course, another matter. I want to discuss how affordable housing can actually be provided.
	Paragraph 52 of the Select Committee report says:
	"Contributions towards affordable housing secured through the planning system so far have been modest and the potential is inevitably limited. The Government has unrealistic expectations about the contribution which planning gain can make to meeting the need for affordable housing. Demands on the developers are limited because the scheme has to remain commercial viable. The use of brownfield sites can reduce profitability and there are increasing demands on the developers to pay for a wide range of facilities. The major contribution by planning agreements is to promote mixed tenure development."
	We all agree with that, but the report goes on to say:
	"However, the value of the contributions from developers through the planning system can be increased. To achieve this, councils need to follow best practice. They also need powers to specify the balance between social rented and intermediate tenure housing on a site by site basis to take forward the conclusions of their housing need assessments."
	The question for the Minister, posed by amendment (f), is this. How will he ensure not just that the correct amount of affordable housing is provided through planning obligations, but that enough social rented and intermediate-tenure housing is provided? How will he ensure that the planning authorities can deliver the mixed-tenure estates that I have seen working so well in Manchester? Let me say in passing that the right to buy produces such estates.
	Amendment (g) deals with the criteria that must be specified. We need to hear from the Minister precisely what they are. In particular, we need to know how the section 106 and tariff charges will apply to not just residential but commercial developments. The amendment asks the Minister to specify whether there will be a "charge per dwelling" and a
	"charge per square metre of all other developments".
	We need to know whether there will be a charge in respect of the provision of social housing in the context of commercial developments.
	These are not academic questions; they are real questions, which developers are asking at this very moment.
	Paragraph (c) of the new subsection (3A) refers to
	"the minimum size of development to which the charge will apply".
	Paragraph 47 of the Select Committee report tells us:
	"Planning Circular 6/98 limits the negotiation of planning gain to housing developments of at least 25 dwellings or one hectare in urban centres and 15 dwellings or 0.5 hectares in London."
	Can the Minister confirm that the new regulations will continue those arrangements so that smaller developments are not caught in the net of the new tariff procedures? Many small builders throughout the country will want to know the answer to that question.

Mark Field: Is it not rather hamfisted to legislate for arrangements in London as a whole, apart from the rest of the country, rather than applying different restrictions to inner London or other parts of the built-up south-east?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Indeed. Each local authority will need to set a different tariff, and flexibility will be needed within it. But the regulations do not yet make it clear whether that will be possible, or whether just a single tariff will be applied in a local authority area. If that proves so, it could lead to some very worrying results. In many authorities throughout the country, particularly the bigger ones, part of the authority is experiencing economic growth and another part is either stagnant or declining. Whatever tariff level is set, it will be too high for one part or too low for the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) therefore makes a very good point.

David Wright: I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am now somewhat confused by the amendment. He has just suggested that we would need to examine the issue on the basis of each local authority, and that some flexibility would be needed. However, his amendment specifies in great detail what is required and asks the Secretary of State to set that out. I cannot understand where he is coming from in this regard.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster was asking about a more general point.

David Wright: I am trying to be helpful.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being very helpful. As I understood it, my hon. Friend's question was a general one that did not relate to this particular amendment. He will doubtless say if that is not the case, and if so I shall answer the alternative question that he may put to me.
	Proposed new paragraph (d), in amendment (g), deals with different charges for greenfield and brownfield land. It is essential that this issue be dealt with if we are to encourage the development of brownfield land. Paragraph 39 of the consultation paper states:
	"The charge could be set at different levels for different types of development—such as brownfield and greenfield development or for residential and commercial development."
	I ask the Minister simply to confirm whether that would be possible.
	The percentage of affordable housing is an issue that I have already dealt with in some depth, so I turn to an interesting matter that the Minister let slip today, although I was already aware of it: the question whether these charges will include a retail prices index escalator. I have never heard of an RPI escalator being applied to what is, in effect, a development tax. Let us suppose that, as I said, the economy was not growing but was in recession, and yet an RPI escalator was applied to the charges. Suddenly, there would be little if anything in the way of larger developments. That could produce an absolutely nonsensical situation.

Mark Field: Surely it is rather idiotic to have any form of RPI escalator. At a given time, the RPI could be quite different from the rate of inflation in the world of development. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the property market could be booming while the RPI is fairly static—indeed, one might argue that that happened in London and the south-east in recent years; likewise, the two could move in opposite directions. Either way, we are talking about the use of a somewhat artificial option to try to ensure that a correct market is put in place. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the use of this RPI system, instead of a system that takes account of changes in regional property markets, or in the market in the country as a whole.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. Such charges ought to be adjusted through the annual report system, and thence through the development plan system.

Keith Hill: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I should be fascinated to hear his response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). If I am not mistaken, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said that the suggestion made was a very good idea. Let us be entirely precise. The RPI is probably running at some 2.5 per cent., yet house prices in London and the south-east are probably growing at a rate of 11 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, on the Opposition's behalf, that if such a system is to be applied, it probably ought to be based on the rate of housing price growth, rather than on that of retail price growth?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for muddying the waters still further. Personally, I do not think there ought to be an escalator at all. There is not one in the current section 106 procedure and the regulations provide a perfectly adequate mechanism for revising the charges upwards and downwards through the annual report, which is translated into the development plan and is subject to community involvement and discussion with developers. That seems to be the proper and fair way of dealing with the matter, rather than having an automatic escalator. If inflation went up—it may well do as a consequence of the Government's tax proposals—and the RPI escalator was in operation, no developers might come forward, to the significant detriment of this country.

Mark Field: The Minister misunderstood my point. Ten years ago, the property market was moving quickly downwards and RPI inflation stood at 7 or 8 per cent. I am sure that the Minister will point out that that was under a Conservative Government. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will agree that using an escalator at that time would have had a catastrophic effect on any new development proposals, as the tariff would have made them entirely uneconomic.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that when economic circumstances are unstable and inflation is likely to be high, we are probably heading towards recession, which could put us in a difficult economic situation. At such a time, property development needs a boost, not the other way round. The RPI escalator could hasten a recession, rather than being a sensible measure to alleviate one. The Minister will need to examine the proposal carefully.
	Amendments (h) and (i) are probing amendments to see what the Government mean by removing the clauses concerned. Amendment (j) states:
	"Provided the planning authority have complied with all the regulations relating to the planning contributions the Secretary of State may not cause a plan to be rejected or revised on the grounds that the authority have set the charge at too low a level."
	The House will be aware that the mechanism will work by negotiation—subject to community involvement and negotiation with developers—after which the local plan will be made. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has reserved huge powers to himself to cause the plans to be amended. It would be reprehensible if, having gone through all that community involvement and negotiation with developers—that is likely to take some considerable time and to delay plans considerably—the Secretary of State said that the charge was too high or too low and that it should be set at a different level. That flies in the face of local democracy. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on that point.

Matthew Green: I am intrigued. I should be inclined to agree to limit the Secretary of State's powers to rule against what is decided locally, but why is the hon. Gentleman referring only to the charge being set too low? Why is he keen to leave the power to rule with the Secretary of State if the charge is set too high? If he wanted to leave it up to local people, surely he would favour removing the Secretary of State's powers in both directions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman does try to distort the facts. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard me refer to the charge being set either too high or too low. The amendment has been drafted in this way because I am concerned that the Minister is more likely to ask local authorities to alter the plans if the charge is too low. If the charge is too high—for example, with regard to the Mayor's aspirations that there should be 50 per cent. provision of affordable housing in the larger housing developments—no developer will come forward.
	That is a good incentive for local planning authorities not to set these charges too high.
	Amendment (k) says that
	"nothing in these regulations will permit any change in the quantum of the planning contribution unless there is a revision of the development plan document".
	I am concerned that, by intervening through regulations or the annual plan, the local planning authority or the Secretary of State may arbitrarily raise or lower the charges. I want any changes to be subject to the proper plan-making procedure.
	Amendment (l) is important. This Government have loaded all sorts of responsibilities, obligations, powers and duties on to local authorities without fully funding them through the revenue support grant. We will find that there is an enormous amount of up-front work for local authorities in producing local plans and formulae, although the process may be quicker in the future, and I do not know whether it will be. I repeat that some authorities will find it difficult to cope with the Bill, particularly if they are short of planning officers. The Minister has told me informally that his Department will provide advice and consultancy. Perhaps he will clarify that, so that local authorities throughout the land can be assured of what physical help, in the form of manpower, or financial help, in the revenue support grant, they will be given to deal with the expensive setting-up operation.
	New clause 2 deals with the regulations that will decide how payments are to be made. Amendment (a) is simple: it says that once planning permission has been granted and remains in force, and any condition relating to planning contribution has been agreed with the applicant, the contribution may not be altered. That seems to me perfectly straightforward. It would be monstrously wrong if the developer had got his planning permission and agreed the tariff with the local authority, that tariff was still in force, and it was then altered by periodic revision. The local authority should have a bite of the cherry when the application is being negotiated, and once the tariff has been agreed, it should be a binding obligation on both the Secretary of State and the local authority. Any property contract would have a similar effect.
	Amendment (b) is interesting: it would ensure that the maximum amount for the tariff would not be higher than if the case were an application made under the section 106 procedure. I should like to hear from the Minister how he thinks the levels of the new tariffs will compare with the payments under section 106. Will they be higher, because the developer may have greater certainty and speed—although I do not think that he will—or will they be lower, to encourage the applicant to opt for the new tariff procedure? Given that the Government and local authorities will put a great deal of work into the new tariff proposals, I hope that they will be lower, so that developers will, as a norm, opt for the tariff payments. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
	Amendment (c) deals with whether adjustments to contributions may be made upwards or downwards, and the RPI escalator. Paragraph 39 of the consultation paper says that different charges could apply to different types of land in a local authority area, namely greenfield and brownfield land.
	Amendment (d) would ensure that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is confusing me. Amendment (d) to new clause 2 has not been selected, so he may not refer to it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. There are so many amendments in this large group. I now have the selection list in front of me, and I see that your advice is very helpful. I will therefore move on rapidly to amendment (e), which has been selected. It is a probing amendment, to leave out proposed new subsection (5), which states:
	"If a document is prescribed for the proposes of section (Planning contribution)(3) the regulations may prescribe . . . the procedure for its preparation and the time at which it must be published . . . the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the Secretary of State may take steps in relation to the preparation of the document."
	That, it seems to me, could cover almost anything under the sun. It is a very widely drawn clause, and I want the Minister to explain exactly to what he intends it to apply.
	Amendment (f), which has been selected, is an interesting amendment that the Government might consider seriously. It relates to the land transfer provision under proposed new subsection (6), which states:
	"Provision may be made for the enforcement by the local planning authority of the terms of a planning contribution including provision . . . for a person deriving title to the land from the contributor to be bound by the terms of the contribution".
	I can see why the Minister has included that in the new clause, as he wants the obligations to be carried on, in so far as they are unspent, to the next owner or occupier of the land. My amendment allows for circumstances in which the tariff has been completely met and paid and the land is then transferred—a system should exist whereby the local authority can issue a certificate to say that the contribution has been fully paid and met, and the transfer of the property can then take place without the obligation clogging up the works.
	Amendment (g) is also interesting and deals with proposed new subsection (6)(b), which relates to the provision
	"for a condition to be attached to any planning permission relating to the land requiring the contribution to be made before any development is started".
	I can understand why that provision is included—it is an attempt to improve the cash flow of local authorities by making sure that the contribution is paid before the development starts. The problem is that that is not, in many cases, how the section 106 procedure works. Usually, the developer is allowed to make some money by building some part of the development before he is obliged to pay in relation to the section 106 agreement, because he has some money in the kitty to make the payment. If it is all done up front, however, that is an additional cost, which is unfair on the developer. It would be much more flexible if the same procedure that currently applies under section 106 could also be applied to the new tariff procedure, which is the purpose of amendment (g).
	In relation to amendment (h), we have heard concerns expressed in numerous interventions today about how the money is actually spent. We have dealt with what the section 106 procedure and the tariff can be used for—the necessity test and the de minimis test—under previous amendments. What is not so clear, however, is how the money is actually spent. There are anecdotes that in some authorities 90 per cent. of the money raised through planning obligation simply disappears into the general budget. That is not satisfactory, as I hope the Minister will agree, so I have tabled amendment (h), which states that the Audit Commission
	"will have a specific duty to ensure value for money in any case to which subsection (7) (a) applies."
	That seems to me to be eminently sensible, for two reasons. First, we want to ensure that the money is applied to the purposes for which it is paid. Secondly, even when it is applied to those purposes, we want to ensure that it has achieved proper value for money and that it has not been wasted or squandered. Giving the Audit Commission that duty is a sensible way of getting round that problem.
	To move on to amendment (i), currently, in relation to developments and the section 106 procedure, the amount is negotiated at the time of grant of planning permission, or subsequently if it is a condition, but always before the development starts. Often, there are unforeseen costs produced by Departments, which are then taken into account in the section 106 payment, which can be adjusted accordingly. I have in mind such matters as archaeological digs, unforeseen contamination, problems with legal title, and so on. The amendment would provide the opportunity to go back to the local planning authority and have the section 106 agreement adjusted to take into account any extra costs that might be incurred. If there is no opportunity to change the tariff that has been set after the development has started, some developments could become unviable. We need some mechanism for certain narrowly defined categories to allow the tariff to be adjusted in the light of unforeseen circumstances.

David Wright: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the community contributions should bear the development risk? If a developer purchases a site, it should bear the risk as part of its commercial operation. Is he suggesting that, if circumstances change, the element of the costs that should bear the development risk is the community contribution?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that intervention, because it helps me to clarify my point. The amendment would apply only when local authorities or Departments imposed additional obligations on developers, such as an extended archaeological dig if some important remains were found during the course of the development. One can think of other unforeseen circumstances in which Departments could impose additional obligations, such as flood alleviation measures that were not foreseen when the development started. Other examples include contamination of land previously owned by the Government that was not fully disclosed at the time of purchase but became apparent after the development had begun. Therefore, we need some mechanism to adjust the costs—not to reduce developer risk, which should be borne by the developer—but to cover additional costs imposed by a local authority or Department.
	The Minister said that the local authority can decline to accept a tariff in some circumstances. Amendment (k) seeks to explore the circumstances in which the local authority may decline to accept the tariff, and I would be grateful if the Minister would elucidate further on that point.
	Amendment (j) covers the very point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned. It is often the case that two local authorities produce a joint development plan, and the Government hope that that will happen more often. Such a joint development plan, produced by two or more authorities, should allow for joint section 106 or tariff payments. The converse should also apply. If an applicant makes an application for a large development that spans more than one local planning authority, we should have proper arrangements to cover that.
	New clause 3 mirrors new clauses 1 and 2, except that it would devolve all the powers concerned to the National Assembly for Wales. I have no problem with the devolution of powers to the National Assembly, except that in the devolution settlement this House reserved certain matters to the relevant Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House. One of those matters is taxation. Before we devolve the powers in the Bill to the Welsh Assembly, we need to be sure that it will produce similar regulations to those that will apply in England. The Minister needs to explain the time scale under which he will devolve the powers to the National Assembly and whether he will delay issuing a commencement order for new clause 3 until he has seen the proposed regulations and is satisfied that they are reasonable. Developers and Welsh communities need to be protected. As we have said many times before, if the charge is set too high, no developers will come forward, but if it is set too low—which is unlikely—the Assembly and the planning authorities in Wales will not get the planning contribution to which they are entitled.
	I have come to the end of my amendments. The Bill makes a large and important change, and the Government are rushing it with undue haste. The new clauses are far too general and they do not answer our specific points. I have put a large number of questions to the Minister and he may not be able to answer all of them in the time available, so I should be grateful if, before the Bill reaches another place, he would write to me with the answers to any questions that he cannot answer today, and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
	As this huge Bill is of a technical nature, I have no doubt that Members of another place will want to give it close scrutiny. I have major concerns about the tariff proposals, not least because they will put significant burdens on local authorities at a time when the authorities are already overstretched and when they will also have to deal with the onerous regulations in the remaining parts of the Bill. The Government are introducing an entirely new planning system, so it seems an act of folly to reintroduce new tariff proposals that were deemed unworkable by many people when the Government mooted them at the first consultation—that is why the Government withdrew them. Why not ensure that the existing section 106 procedure works properly before trying to provide an alternative?
	When the existing procedure does not work especially well, why are the Government trying to provide an alternative that will stretch local authority resources such that the planning system will be paralysed in some areas? In all seriousness, I offer the Minister this positive contribution: why not consider delaying the commencement order for these provisions at least until the current 106 procedure can be clarified and streamlined? When that is working, we can introduce the alternative system.
	I commend my amendments to the House.

Matthew Green: I shall try to make a contribution that is a little shorter than 49 minutes.The Government have ended up falling into an unsatisfactory method of dealing with changes to section 106. I realise that planning Bills do not come along often, so I can see why the Government wanted to insert the provisions at this stage and have them enacted through regulations. However, many of the details that have caused concern on both sides of the House will be dealt with in those regulations, and that is unsatisfactory. It is also unfortunate that the Government are in the middle of the consultation process.
	None the less, I suspect that the broad thrust of the changes is correct. They should enable local councils to define through a local development document the areas and types of scheme to which planning contributions—planning gain—will be expected.

Andrew Turner: To what extent does the hon. Gentleman think that we can rely on the Minister's assurances about the regulations that might be made by the National Assembly for Wales? Although local authorities in England may have considerable scope, the Assembly could introduce incredibly rigid provisions.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I welcome devolution of power not only to Wales but to local councils, and it seems to me that the proposals will take decision making to a lower level than the current system, which operates by ministerial diktat. I welcome that, whether decisions are to be made by the local council in the Isle of Wight or regulations are to be made by the National Assembly for Wales, so I have no problem with such proposals in principle. If the Assembly makes a hash of things, it is for the electorate to kick out the Labour Administration in Wales.
	The new provisions will provide a more satisfactory arrangement and will give power back to local councils, but I want to raise some detailed concerns so that the answers can be put on the record. First, section 106 is not used purely for planning gain—for example, in South Shropshire district council's affordable housing scheme, it is used to put a cap on the price of individual houses for resale. I know that the Government are looking with some interest at the development of that new policy. However, as the thrust of the debate has been about the use of section 106 in terms of planning gain rather than an agreement about a single dwelling, it is unclear how the changes will affect it. My understanding is that the local council could, through its local development document, continue to make stipulations exactly as, for example, the South Shropshire council does under its current policy. I understand that a similar scheme has been taken up on Dartmoor and in some other rural areas where affordable housing is a serious problem. My reading of the provisions is that it will be left to the local authority to deal with them in the relevant local development document, but I should like the Minister to clarify that point and confirm that it is correct.
	Secondly, I hope that local authorities will be left with their current freedom to stipulate, through the local development document, a fairly high percentage of affordable housing on a site. Currently, several local authorities, not least South Shropshire, require there to be 50 per cent. affordable housing on sites of two or more houses. That goes well beyond the Government's recommendation of 30 per cent. on sites of 19 or more houses. That is the current legal situation, so I hope that nothing in the regulations will curtail local authorities in the delivery of more affordable housing. Again, I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but is not there a difficulty if a local planning authority has power to raise money through a planning contribution or a section 106 agreement? Obviously, the authority would be interested in obtaining as much money as possible—that is human nature—so does not that make it less likely that the authority would insist on a higher proportion of social or affordable housing?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but again it comes down to local decision making. I know that in Shropshire the priority would be to take little money from developers and to have affordable houses, as that is the overwhelming problem facing my constituency—as both local district councils now recognise. I suspect that the situation will vary throughout the country, but surely that is what we want: local decision making by local people.
	Will the Minister confirm that, through the local development documents, councils will still be able to specify a high rate of affordable housing and use that as a way of delivering such houses? Similar schemes could be used in London in the Thames gateway to provide housing for key workers, so I hope for reassurance from the Minister as a sign that the Government are moving in that direction.
	I have some concerns about the rates of the tariff and again I should like some reassurances from the Minister. Section 106 is often used to deliver small items of community benefit next to a housing development—for example, a community hall or a children's play area. Those are good uses of section 106. However, I am concerned that if the developer opted to pay the tariff it would be up to the local authority to do the work, to construct the play area or whatever the community needed. However, because the public sector acts more slowly than the private sector, by the time the council gets around to building the item in question it will cost more than it would have done when the tariff was calculated, with the result that either the community ends up with a smaller children's play area or the council tax payer is asked to pay the extra and thus subsidise the construction.
	The Minister will say that it is up to councils to calculate the tariffs correctly, so that they know that they will get the money they need, but I remain concerned that the route whereby developers can opt to pay the money will lead to more detailed work having to be done—calculations of what something might cost in a year's time, for example—rather than the contribution being made in kind. If the developer opts to produce it in kind, that is probably an appropriate way around that potential problem.
	The Minister dealt broadly with another of my concerns, but I would like him to reiterate his reply that it is not intended that the charge will be some form of tax that may be used to keep down council tax. I believe that there is broad agreement in the House that that is not the intention behind the measure. Community gain is the idea underlying planning contributions and it would be worrying if a local authority sought to tax development purely to keep down council tax.

John Hayes: I tried to tease the maximum clarity from the Minister earlier, and he was most helpful. However, what causes me anxiety is not that the whole sum will transparently and obviously be spent on subsidising council tax or on a completely unrelated purpose, but that the money will be divided up and a more complex, more convoluted way found to do something that was not clear at the beginning of the process, that is not in line with local expectations, and that is not in the spirit of the arrangements that the Minister is hoping local authorities will put in place.

Matthew Green: I share that concern. The council is to set out in the local development document what it will use the money for, on which sites or schemes the charge is likely to be an option, and what the levels of charge will be. My concern is that there is a danger of inaction by the local authority—not so much that it will literally take the money out of one account and put it into the revenue account to keep other services running, but that it will sit on the money and use the interest to subsidise other services.
	Even though I am not a huge fan of reserved powers, I was relieved to hear the Minister mention that reserved powers may be necessary in this respect. A council could create a local development document, then broadly ignore it. The problem is that we are dealing with fairly technical stuff. Not many members of the public will rush to the local council and ask to see the local development document setting out the charging regime for developments. Nor, dare I say it, will many councillors rush to read that part of the document: they will be far more interested in seeing whether some houses are to be built next to their homes or in their wards than in reading about the charging arrangements. Although I am inclined to agree that the electorate should be the best judge and that adverse publicity about a council that takes money and does nothing with it should be enough, I suspect that because of the technical nature of the matter, there should be some form of reserved powers in this instance. The Minister touched on that subject, but I would welcome hearing about what form the powers might take.
	Another of my concerns is probably best dealt with through guidance. We all know that people do not like new housing or industrial developments to be built next door. Often, community gain is used to assuage some of their fears: yes, there will be more housing in the area, but a roundabout will be installed at that really dangerous junction as a result, or the school will get a much needed extension, and the developer will pay for it. That can help to reduce local public opposition to a project, but I foresee problems arising. Let us suppose that a local development document is produced stating that all the charges will be taken from all the schemes in the area and the money used to build a new sports centre at one end of the council area. Although that would be entirely legal, it might excite great resentment in parts of the district, because the people in those areas would feel that the houses had been built next to them so that people 20 miles away could have a new sports centre.
	There is a danger of public discontent with that aspect of the system. As it is difficult to deal with such issues in legislation, and nearly impossible to do so in regulations, I hope that the guidance which I assume will accompany the new arrangements will encourage councils to bear in mind that the community that bears the brunt of the development for which the planning application has been submitted should see at least some of the gain as a result.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on an important matter, and I have noticed the Minister acknowledging that through his body language. However, there is a more specific issue than just the opportunity costs of the inability to ameliorate local concerns about a specific project. It may be incorrectly assumed that the money is being filtered away, that it is disappearing altogether, or even that it is being used in an underhand manner. That would be untrue, but people who do not understand the system might easily perceive that to be the case. There is the potential not only to lose the ability to assuage people's fears but, worse, to undermine local people's faith in the system.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The key is not to lose sight of the original concept of planning gain, which is that the community local to the development derives some gain from it. That is how section 106 originated and I am certain that the Government envisage the changes leading broadly to the same end, but local authorities should be encouraged to bear that in mind. That will probably have to be done through guidance, because I do not see another way of dealing with it.
	I shall not go into the detail of the Conservative amendments because I suspect that, with hindsight, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) realises that most of them curtail local authorities' ability to decide for themselves what is best for their area, and I am sure that that is not what he intended. That he got the wrong end of the stick probably has a lot to do with the fact that he had only a couple of days, and had to burn the midnight oil. It just shows that we should work reasonable hours, because after working a certain number of hours one does not think straight.
	The new clauses offer a potential way forward, but I return to my point that the Government have not chosen a satisfactory means of dealing with the issue. My main concern is that the details of how the system will work will not be dealt with on the Floor on the House or in an extended Committee sitting—they will take the form of a statutory instrument, of which there can be little scrutiny. I struggle to see how the Government, in the circumstances in which they have landed up, could have found a different way of achieving their aims. However, when the next planning Bill is introduced in 10 years' time, I hope that the Government do not spring a similar Bill on us. Of course, the Government will be different by then, and if the Liberal Democrats are in government, we shall strive to avoid doing that.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and agree with some of his comments. He spoke about the House sitting too late and Members perhaps getting confused. Clearly, his twilight hour is not the other side of 6 o'clock. He has done very well.
	I shall try to be brief. It may be helpful, as is conventional, if I begin by declaring some possible interests. As I said in Committee, the more I think about them, the more I believe they are reverse financial interests. I do not receive a penny from any organisation outside the House or any part of my profession, but I am a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects and a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and I pay those bodies not inconsiderable amounts. I found that those sums have been going up so much that I have applied for retired status in both those prestigious professions. I should add that I am an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, an honorary member of the Landscape Institute, an honorary fellow of the Faculty of Building and an honorary fellow of the Association of Building Engineers. If I remember any more, I shall add them later.
	I have long criticised aspects of section 106 agreements. In some cases, I believe they border on the corrupt—"You don't get your planning permission unless you give us this amount of money for that particular project"—but they are here to stay, and having listened to the debate so far and thought about these matters quite deeply, I share the worry of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who questions whether it is a good thing to have two different mechanisms working in tandem, rather than trying to improve the present regime of section 106 agreements. I put that down as a marker.
	As the Minister kindly gave way to me twice on the matter, I shall not dwell on the possibility of local planning authorities, when making their regulations, extending the present area in which section 106 agreements can apply. The Minister rightly said that, in general, section 106 agreements apply to only 1.5 per cent. of the total volume of planning applications throughout the country, but of course, as he also said, they relate to the more significant planning applications. My fear is that, at least in the margins, local planning authorities might find an opportunity under the proposed new regime to extend the area in which permitted planning contributions would apply.
	I shall give a rather silly example, for a particular reason. At present, if a development requires a crossover from the highway to the curtilage of the property—say, somebody is building a garage as an extension on his or her house—the local authority might insist that it should carry out the work. Whereas, meeting the proper specification for a crossover, the work could probably be done for £700—I am using a typical example—the council might say that it costs £1,500 or £1,100, making its own profit. It is so easy, under a planning contribution agreement, for the council to set the tariff scale at £1,500.
	We are all human beings. I am not criticising local authorities or local planning authorities, but if an authority has the opportunity to charge money, it will seize that opportunity and milk it to its utmost ability. That is not a party political point, but a fact of human nature. It is extremely important that the Secretary of State prescribe the areas in which the new planning contribution can apply. It is a new opportunity for a tax, just as a section 106 agreement is, in effect, a tax. The proposed contribution is a tariff, so it is a tax. I shall not dwell on the matter or call it a stealth tax. There are already section 106 agreements in place. Because it is a tax on some developments, the ability to charge the planning contribution and the amount that can be charged must be carefully prescribed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made a good point when, if I judged him correctly, he said that under section 106 agreements, the applicant—I would say generally, but now always—knew exactly where his financial contribution was going. It would be spent on a specific project in a specific place. Under the proposed planning contribution arrangement, it is obvious—again, this is human nature—that the local planning authority will hold on to the money for as long as it can.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow gave the example of a new sports centre on the other side of the borough. For such a project, the local planning authority will have to hold on to the money until it has sufficient to go ahead with what is, by any description, a pretty significant project. If the legislation goes through, and the regulations are issued, we must consider carefully how we can ensure that the local planning authority is required to specify the projects on which the money will be spent.

David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for not being present earlier, as I was serving on a Select Committee. Does he agree that section 106 agreements have been bedevilled by the lack of transparency—in particular, the fact that after a planning application has been agreed, it is often implemented through an individual officer talking to the developer? Communities often feel disempowered when they see that the outcome of the section 106 agreement is not what they expected.

Sydney Chapman: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I agree entirely. I had some criticisms of section 106 agreements, and the apparent lack of transparency was my main argument for criticising them. That is common ground between us. Unless the regulations are very tightly drawn, the receipts coming from the planning contributions could be even less transparent than the section 106 agreements. I need not pursue the point further.

John Hayes: Not only will the new arrangements be less transparent, but they will be less local, as they will not necessarily be tied to the particular development, and they will arguably be less likely to lead to the development of social housing. That is the view of those in the industry. Will my hon. Friend comment on those aspects?

Sydney Chapman: I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend, but the outcome will depend on the sort of local authority in question. If it is a scattered rural local authority, I think my hon. Friend has cause for concern. I represent a more suburban area, where the metropolis meets the countryside, with all sorts of development. My constituency is much smaller in size than my hon. Friend's. Mine is only about 15 square miles in north London, so there is more sense of community than would be the case 8 miles away or in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is a matter of degree. The Minister confirmed that, if the Bill is enacted, the applicant will be able to choose between a section 106 agreement route or a planning contribution route. We must bear in mind that the system is comprehensive and complicated.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow was a little unfair about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. The hon. Gentleman might have been burning the midnight oil, but I imagine that my hon. Friend is with it 24 hours a day. There was a short time to consider the matters, so even if some of the amendments are found to be unnecessary, they have given us the opportunity to raise important points and get assurances from the Minister.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of the subject and no doubt he has read the submission by the Law Society, which is worried about the new tariff proposals. The society says:
	"The new clause seems to envisage local authorities determining that in respect of some developments a planning contribution would not be appropriate."
	Does my hon. Friend agree that giving local planning authorities the power to say, "No, on these developments you must pay a tariff", is a step too far?

Sydney Chapman: I am trying to play devil's advocate to my hon. Friend to keep the quality of the debate high. There may be no fundamental difference between that arrangement and the procedure for section 106 agreements. I understand what the Law Society says but I do not necessarily agree. Section 106 agreements are negotiable, but the bottom line is that local authorities may say to applicants, "If you don't do what we want, you don't get what you want." Therefore, applicants might not get planning permission, although I suppose that they could still run off to the Secretary of State to appeal. Section 106 agreements are effectively compulsory, so I envisage no difference in principle compared with the arrangements for planning contributions.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and was absolutely right to respond somewhat cautiously to the invitation of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to leap aboard the Law Society's bandwagon. Let me remind him of what I said about circumstances in which a local authority might say that a planning contribution would be inappropriate and not required. That would be a case if a development were proposed on a site with heavy contamination that would require costly remediation, or a site under multiple ownership if it were anticipated that there would be enormous complications when engaging in a land assembly exercise. It might be inappropriate to deem that either a section 106 or a planning contribution would be required for a large development in such circumstances. The Law Society has got the wrong end of the stick on this one, so I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who has deep experience of these matters, on reacting in an appropriately careful, calm, calculated and cautious fashion to his colleague's suggestion.

Sydney Chapman: I hardly know where to put myself. This is all a matter of relativity. The Minister said that the planning contribution was not a tax on developments—he prefers not to use the word "tax" and we should not put words in his mouth, so let us call it a tariff. However, I could equally argue, without being spurious, that a tax on most developments exists because people must pay a certain amount when they put in applications to local planning authorities. That requirement entered planning law only relatively recently. There is a movable shelf and people on both sides of the argument can properly make debating points because the situation is detailed and complicated.
	Although I had not intended to speak for so long, I shall make one or two other points. I thought that one of the Government's new clauses stated that the planning contribution must be paid up front—in other words, applicants who had been given planning permission could not begin developments before they had paid the planning contribution. One can relate that situation to a point about the retail prices index escalator. Incidentally, although amendment (g) to new clause 1 says:
	"there will not be any R.P.I. escalator"
	my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold could have added the words, "or any other building industry inflation escalator attached to the agreement on a planning contribution" to the amendment.
	A planning contribution might be agreed at a time when the building industry is booming, but that time could be a turning point before a recession. If there were a national economic recession or a building recession, the boom could go out of the housing market, which would mean that the developer might make a considerable loss. Developers speculate and make judgments, so there is already risk in the process. It is fair to say that an escalator on the contribution would represent an additional risk that developers would have to consider. I agree with my hon. Friend and believe that a planning contribution should not be changed in any way after it has been agreed, especially given that it must be paid up front.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable contribution. I would have more sympathy with his argument if it were not up to developers to decide whether to pay the tariff or to provide work in kind. My understanding of the new system is that a council will not be able to tell developers that they must pay the tariff. A council may say that it is appropriate to impose a tariff on a specific site, but developers will have a choice because a council will not be able to force them to pay rather than undertaking work in kind.

Sydney Chapman: There is little dispute among us. I understand that there may be payment in cash or in kind under a section 106 agreement. I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman—I think that he knows already—that the new clauses provide that a planning contribution may be made in cash or in kind, or as a combination of both. I am glad to get that on the record.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold talked about new clause 3 and Wales. He properly said that through devolution under the Government of Wales Act 1998, specific powers were reserved by the United Kingdom Government. The Minister will not remember that during the Bill's first Committee stage I asked why we required provisions on Wales, because as Wales has been given devolved powers, what right has the UK Parliament to say how Wales should treat planning issues? I did not receive a satisfactory answer in Committee but I received one today from my hon. Friend because he rightly identified the fact that the planning contribution is taxation—an economic matter—and that this House has the right to decide on such matters. The House owes a debt to my hon. Friend not only for tabling his amendments and making his contribution on new clauses 1 to 3, but for addressing the important aspect of the provisions for Wales.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have been consulting the regulations and reading new clause 1 carefully since my hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of paying the obligation in kind. New clause 1(3) says that the local plan must state the "prescribed means" when it is drawn up, and subsection (5) says that the prescribed means are:
	"the payment of a sum . . . the provision of a benefit in kind . . . or . . . a combination of such payment and provision."
	I am not sure whether the tariffs will be set at a local planning or a more specific development level, so perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.

Sydney Chapman: If I may say so, it is for the Minister on duty to respond to that. I see any development in kind being given an amount of money, an allocation of money, and that is deducted from the prescribed fee or the prescribed tax, or the tariff, that will be put on the specific development. That is not a matter for me, but that is my reading of new clause 1(5). That provision underlines that payment can be made in cash or in kind, or a combination of both.

Andrew Turner: One problem in dealing with a number of complex new clauses on Report is that our deliberations tend to degenerate, if that is the right word, into something more akin to consideration in Committee. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I follow his example and probe rather carefully my understanding of some of the new clauses.
	I shall begin where my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) left off, with new clause 1(5) and (6). Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong when I say that the developer can decide between subsections (5) and (6). If he opts for subsection (5), he must use whatever prescribed means the local authority prescribes, and if he opts for subsection (6), he must negotiate. That is my understanding of new clause 1. I see that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) shares my understanding, which makes at least two of us. That is good.
	It is a question of who should have the right to choose. If it were not the developer—the applicant—that had the right to choose, that would go some way to solving the problem illustrated by the hon. Member for Ludlow and my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). The problem concerns developers' contributions—I use a neutral term—being gobbled up and spat out by the local authority at some development at the far end of the district or borough that may not provide any compensation for the people in whose backyard the unwanted development had taken place. Why does the Minister feel it appropriate that that should be a developer's decision rather than a community one? People expect something to be provided locally, not at the far end of the borough. They will view with great concern the failure of the supposed benefit to appear.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is no longer in his place, questioned the operation of section 106 agreements. He said that, in many cases, there is agreement in committee, the officers are sent away to write a section 106 agreement, and it is hoped that something turns up that is acceptable to local people. I know that some local authorities behave in that way, but others will reserve the grant of planning permission until the members are content with the section 106 agreement. The members may have a much better focus on whether, for example, a roundabout or a play area is preferable to the people of a particular small village. I know that the people of my villages would prefer a play area to a roundabout, but it is not always the case. Surely it is reasonable that the local authority's development control committee should reserve that matter and make a decision on the basis of officers' negotiations with the developer.
	I say to the hon. Member for Stroud, in his absence, that it is unreasonable for local authorities to expect the right result if they do not make clear to their officers what results they expect. It is careless of local members, to say the least, to allow their planning committees to get away with that sort of thing, when doubtless those local members will suffer if they do not come up with the right community benefit.

John Hayes: I shall build on my hon. Friend's point. The position might be disadvantageous to the developer as well. Developers often get, properly, some kudos by having contributed to a local scheme that is popular and that people understand and regard as transparent. If money is given, it will not have the same impact in terms of the local community's understanding. It may not therefore benefit the local developer in quite the same way.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that a new play area or an extension to a local school, or even some road humps, would be more popular with the local community than a sports centre that is inaccessible by public transport. In some areas, I know that some developers' contributions have been paid in the form of park-and-ride car parks, by payments to public transport and even by works of so-called public art, which in many cases are unrecognisable as either public or art. People resent their money being spent on such ill-chosen things.
	That brings me on to a response to the question of whether payments should be made up front. If a tariff is introduced, I understand that the payments are required to be made up front. An up-front payment for a developer may make the difference between the viability and unviability of a development. A payment down stream, if that is the opposite of up front, may be affordable because the profit has been realised on the development.

John Hayes: There are two other aspects. The first is that payment up front may be particularly disadvantageous to small developers as opposed to large ones with large budgets and turnovers. Secondly, high-risk developers may be discouraged. Developers will be less likely to take chances if they have already paid in advance. I do not say that I am against payments up front, but these questions must be answered.

Andrew Turner: Those points indeed have to be answered. I shall illustrate what may have been in my hon. Friend's mind, if I may presume to read his mind. A brownfield development may be close to a densely populated area of housing. The people living in that housing have just as much right to the benefits that might accrue from the provision of, for example, a play area as other people who live in areas that are less costly to develop. Yet the developer may not have the capital necessary to put up front into reclamation or remediation, as the Minister calls it, of the brownfield site, and for the provision of a tariff that can be translated into a community benefit. Will the Minister consider whether an up-front payment is the best and only way in which the tariff may be paid?

John Hayes: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow any more than is necessary for the development of his own argument, but many in the industry support his point. The Chartered Institute of Housing and the House Builders Federation both draw attention to the problem of developers being unwilling to take risks specifically in respect of affordable housing on brownfield sites or on any site. They may be discouraged.

Andrew Turner: I was about to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's fertile and inventive imagination, but now I understand that I must give credit to the august bodies that he cited. He is right that there is a problem that could mean that no community benefit is received because no development takes place.
	My hon. Friend gives me a cue to move on to the housing obligation—the socialist housing obligation, as some call it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the obligation to provide affordable housing and the necessity test. I have no objection to the provision of affordable housing, but I am curious about how the necessity test applies. How can the construction of 24 luxury flats give rise to the need to provide so many units of affordable housing? The provision of additional units of luxury housing does not push up the price of local housing, and it may even have the effect of marginally pushing down the price of other housing. When the Minister replies, will he go into some more detail on the application of the necessity test, and whether it will be broadened as a result of the implementation of new clause 1?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that, because of the Tesco case and others, case law has already broadened the necessity test to the de facto position where we have a de minimis test. I was gently chiding the Minister to suggest that the regulations should clarify the position—exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making.
	On a slightly different but related point, the local authority should be able to set different tariffs in different areas according to the existing infrastructure. Clearly, some infrastructure will be poor and some better, so it makes sense to be able to set different charges in different areas.

Andrew Turner: Whether we use the necessity test or a broader test goes to the heart of whether the contribution—or a section 106 agreement—is merely a form of taxation rather than a reasonable contribution to the cost of a particular development.
	What kind of applications should be free from any obligation to pay the contribution? The Minister has not stated what kind of applications he has in mind. It may be possible to speculate. It may be that he has given some opinion in the draft regulations on which he is consulting, but I hope that he will be able to clarify what kind of applications should be free—and, presumably, free at an England-wide level, rather than free at a local authority level—from a particular contribution.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is being a little ungenerous to the Minister, because, in response to an earlier intervention, he said that the development of particularly difficult sites, or those that were unlikely to be developed without the enthusiastic involvement of keen developers who may be deterred by obstacles in their way, might not incur such a tariff. But will my hon. Friend test the Minister on issues such as parts of a local authority or regions and parts of the country that desperately need an injection of new development and that might as a whole be excluded from the tariff?

Andrew Turner: I apologise to the Minister for not making myself sufficiently clear. He pointed out that certain sites may be difficult, but I was envisaging in the kind of applications that may be excluded from any obligation to make the contribution, developments such as hospitals, schools or railway undertakings—in other words, what would be erected on the site rather than the nature of the site. Perhaps the Minister could respond to that, and in so doing distinguish between schools and hospitals provided by public and private sector funds, if it is his intention that a distinction should be made in the regulations that he lays before the House.
	My hon. Friend prompts me to come on to whether there should be variable tariffs and variable exclusions within local authorities. Like many large authorities—and, I am sure, some small ones—my local authority has areas of relative wealth and relative poverty. The areas of relative poverty may need certain kinds of development more than others and developers of such developments might be dissuaded were the tariff set at a standard level throughout the authority. Does the Minister intend that there should be variable tariffs within local planning authority areas, and, as my hon. Friend prompts me to ask, that developments in certain councils should be exempt from any requirement to make a developer contribution?
	Many people see a section 106 agreement as merely a means of extracting money from a developer in return for a development that almost certainly would take place anyway, even though that it usually contributes to some local benefit, and sometimes to a benefit that is provided city-wide. A park-and-ride scheme is a good example of such a section 106 agreement. The developer's contribution set out in new clause 1—and to some extent the section 106 agreement—begins to look like a tax, rather than merely a payment made to the authority to compensate for the consequences of a particular development. Indeed, it begins to look so much like a tax that I am sorry that The Daily Telegraph did not include it as No. 61 on page 3 this morning. This is a tax on development because it is not hypothecated to a particular purpose and it is not a charge because it does not compensate for a particular cost. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at whether the contributions should properly be defined as a charge or a tax. It appears to me to be a tax.
	I have only two other points, one of which is on the social housing obligation. In some places—many parts of London are good examples—the profit made from developing housing is so great that the social housing obligation can be met out of profit, and the marginal rate of return on the development is so great that the developer may suffer a bit but not hugely from its imposition. In other parts of the country—parts of my constituency are an example—the marginal benefit from building housing is still regrettably so low that developers wonder whether to go ahead, because they may not make sufficient profit. I am sure that that is even more the case in more deprived parts of the country.
	If the developer is not going to make sufficient profit, he will not go ahead, even with private housing, and there will be a dearth of such housing available in an area. Under those circumstances, the only way the developer can meet the social housing obligation is to raise the price of the housing that he builds.
	That means that the developer no longer meets the cost of the social housing obligation out of his pocket; in many cases, it is met by first-time buyers who purchase houses that he intended to build in the first place. The price of those houses can be driven up by the social housing obligation. Will the Minister address that issue and refer to the balance that local authorities might strike in drawing up a tariff, variable or otherwise?
	Finally, on Wales, the Minister has given us plenteous and generous assurances about the regulations that he intends to lay before the House setting out the details of the path that he wishes to take. For our part, Opposition Members will make a judgment on those assurances. I am sure that we will have faith in him and believe what he says. We may conclude that those assurances are not good enough, but at least a clear set of assurances will have been given. We have no such assurances from the National Assembly for Wales. Nobody has spoken in this House for the Assembly; indeed, nobody can do so. Have there been any discussions behind the scenes between his office and the Assembly that allow him to say that the Assembly concurs with the assurances that he has given?

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his comments? He appears to be saying that he wants the Welsh to be protected against decisions that they take for themselves. Is that correct?

Andrew Turner: Not at all. In deciding how to vote on the new clause, I wish to know the circumstances in which it may be applied throughout England and Wales. That is my duty as an English Member of Parliament in legislating for England and Wales.

John Hayes: The Welsh issue is even more complex than my hon. Friend suggests. We heard earlier from the Minister about provision that applied where local authorities of many types were involved in a particular planning application. The border between Wales and England will sometimes be crossed in such cases, as developments may affect authorities on either side of it. Through my hon. Friend, may I invite the Minister to comment on those matters, which seem highly pertinent?

Andrew Turner: I saw the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) nodding; I assume that he did so on the basis of some local knowledge. I am unique among Members representing English constituencies in that my local authority area has no borders with any others, so I do not encounter the problem of cross-border planning applications. None the less, I would welcome the Minister's comments on developments that occur partly in England and partly in Wales.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that I have suggested a sensible mechanism to the Minister? Setting up the tariffs will take a great deal of hard work. The Minister might wish to look carefully at the commencement order in that regard and consider the draft regulations proposed by the National Assembly for Wales to establish that they are, at least initially, in line with those in England. Of course, the matter would thereafter be one for the Assembly.

Andrew Turner: That proposal would go some way towards solving the problem postulated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but it would not solve—I am sure that it was not intended to—the more serious problem of what assurances the Minister is giving us. The Minister laughed merrily when I asked rhetorically whether there had been discussions with the National Assembly for Wales. [Interruption.] He is now muttering to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. If we are entitled when we introduce legislation to know the direction in which the Government intend to proceed in respect of England, surely we are entitled to know the direction in which the National Assembly for Wales intends to proceed in respect of Wales. Our decision on whether to vote for or against the new clause may hinge on that issue. [Interruption.] The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is now muttering. I did not hear what he muttered, but I suspect that he was telling me that I should not worry my little head about the Welsh, as they can look after themselves. Not at all; I am required to worry my little head about Wales, just as hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are required to worry their little heads about foundation hospitals and tuition fees. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was not seeking to intervene, but another thought has entered my head. Of course, there is a financial settlement for Wales each year. If the wrong level of contribution were set, it could have a material effect on the level of financial contribution given to Wales.

Andrew Turner: From someone who was not seeking to intervene, that is a particularly clever intervention. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I had not thought of.
	The Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary still cannot give any assurances or reveal whether discussions have taken place with the National Assembly for Wales. Will the Assembly adopt the sensible, rational, honourable and clear position that the Minister has set out, or will it adopt some other position? Until we know that, we cannot come to a conclusion on how to vote on the new clause.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in this genuinely good and well-informed debate, which has been none the worse for being largely confined—I note the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), whom I am delighted to see in his place—to the usual cast of characters in such discussions, who might be described as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill repertory theatre. However, it has also been a long debate and I have no desire to protract it unnecessarily, so I give notice that I shall be reluctant to take interventions on the same extremely liberal scale as I did earlier.
	None the less, I wish to respond in detail to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), although many of his questions and those of other hon. Members relate to matters best dealt with in consultation. In many respects, it would be inappropriate for the Government to express views ex cathedra, as it were, when we are essentially in a listening mode. However, I give him the assurance for which he asked: if I do not fully answer his questions in the course of my response, which I hope will be fairly comprehensive, I shall write to him as far as possible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Keith Hill: I advised the hon. Gentleman that I was reluctant to give way as much I did earlier. I shall immediately break my rule, but I hope that this will be a serious and substantive intervention.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a very important intervention. If the Government's consultation will not finish until 8 January and the Minister is saying that he will not give specific commitments or answers to questions because that consultation is taking place, but this House is being required to legislate on this matter in the absence of those answers, he should not be bringing these regulations before the House.

Keith Hill: I am not bringing regulations to the House; I am bringing enabling amendments, and the House will in due course have ample opportunity to consider regulations relating to them when we bring those regulations before it.
	Before I move on to the amendments, let me deal with Wales, with which Opposition Members seemed to be developing an obsession. I have noticed before that such moods can develop in the House—a Member makes a suggestion, someone else picks it up, then everyone begins to think that it is a really good idea. I am sorry to have to dampen the ardour on this occasion.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)—of whom, as the House will be aware, I am inordinately fond—made a sturdy effort to raise the spectre of taxation, and was joined by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, we are devolving these powers to Wales for a very simple and straightforward reason—the Welsh authorities already have the power to enter into planning obligations with developers, and they should also have the power to set planning contributions and to allow developers in Wales the choice of whether to opt for the charge. All that our approach amounts to is "fair do's" for Wales. If the Conservatives still had any friends in business, I am sure that those in Wales would be enthusiastic about that development; but, candidly, I have nothing more to add to the subject.
	Let me attempt to put some meat on the bones of the Government's proposals, which I outlined at the beginning of this long, but properly so, debate. As I explained, the planning contribution provisions set out a framework for planning contributions made in respect of development or use of land. The intention is to add to the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an additional provision to enable developers to choose to make a fixed contribution that is calculated in advance by the planning authority. The intention is not to get rid of planning obligations, but to provide speed and certainty where possible and flexibility where necessary.
	Planning authorities will be able to consider in advance the possible impacts on their area of increased development and what contributions will be appropriate to mitigate those impacts. The "plan-led" approach to planning obligations is a big improvement on the present, rather ad hoc, arrangements, to which I shall return later. Developers will have more certainty about the likely impacts of their proposed development on the area, will know in advance what contributions the planning authority is likely to require them to provide, and will be able to choose whether to make the contribution as set by the planning authority or to seek to negotiate a contribution more specifically tailored to their circumstances.
	In response to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, new clause 1 provides for two types of contributions: those made by the prescribed means—that is, the charge—and those made by compliance with the relevant requirements under the traditional section 106 negotiations. We give the choice to developers because in some cases that will assist in accelerating the planning process, as I am sure we all desire. It is not inevitable that developers will opt for the charge. That is not because of difficulties associated with the scale of the charge, but because of the commitment that many developers bring to sustainable communities in terms of adding value through their developments. We also intend that local planning authorities should be able to secure full community value from choosing the charge.
	Contributions made by the prescribed means are the contributions that will be fixed in advance by planning authorities. Planning authorities will be required to put the detail of the contributions in a document, which may be a development plan document but will, in any event, be subject to consultation and public involvement. It will set out what type of development is likely to give rise to contributions and exceptions, how the contribution will be calculated, and for what the planning authority intends to use the receipts from contributions. The document will show the link between the impacts of development on the planning authority's area and the payment of the contributions. The requirements of a planning authority will, therefore, be contained in an open document that is available for all to see. That provides transparency in terms of the way that contributions are calculated, when they are likely to be required, and what they will be used for; and, in turn, provides certainty and fairness for all involved in the planning process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister address the point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) regarding the level at which the local authority will set the charges? Will they be applied across the whole local planning authority area? Will there be different charges for different areas—for example, if one is in growth, but another is not? Might there even be different charges for separate developments in a very large regeneration development?

Keith Hill: As one would expect, the charge will differ according to the different impacts of the development. It is essentially a matter for consultation, however, and we expect a vigorous input from all interested parties. I am sure that in due course the hon. Gentleman and the House will have the opportunity comprehensively to examine the proposals.
	A contribution paid by compliance with the relevant requirements—that is, the traditional section 106 arrangement—enables contributions to be negotiated. As I said, that provides the flexibility to agree a contribution that is tailored to a particular development or its circumstances. It also enables planning contributions to relate to matters that are specific to the development site, such as provision of adequate access. It is intended that the relevant requirements will be similar to the provisions contained in section 106. Where the developer opts to pay the contribution by the prescribed means, our consultation document suggests that a residual negotiation may be necessary to cover matters that could never be covered by the charge. Where that is the case, and in order to ensure fairness, subsection (4) of new clause 1 provides that where a developer has paid the contribution by one means, the planning authority cannot seek more through the other method of securing a planning contribution.
	New clause 2 sets out in further detail the matters for which the planning contribution scheme will provide. It allows the Secretary of State to set the minimum and maximum amounts that the planning authority may set as a contribution, enables the planning authority to update the set amounts by reference to a criterion such as the retail prices index in order to avoid a reduction in their value, and requires planning authorities to produce an annual report so that we can all see how the contribution system is working. As in the case of section 106, agreements to pay planning contributions will be enforceable by the planning authority. It is envisaged that the powers that are made available will be similar to those contained in section 106. The contribution may be modified or discharged depending on the circumstances.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for his support for the broad thrust of the proposals, which he said are probably right and represent a more satisfactory arrangement. On his question about South Shropshire, the Government are considering that approach with interest, and I shall of course reply to him in due course. He also asked about affordable housing. I assure him that the last thing that the Government would want to do is to limit the ability of local planning authorities to secure more affordable housing.
	I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold. The fact that they deal with the detail of the provisions rather than general principles suggests that on the whole he accepts what the Government are trying to achieve—I am glad about that. I am concerned, however, that such amendments to new clauses 1 and 2 would fetter the flexibility that they provide in allowing us to respond effectively and sensibly not only to the consultation that we are undertaking, but to changing circumstances.
	I cannot understand, for example, why the hon. Gentleman should wish to tie us now, in primary legislation, to how the contribution should be calculated, as he proposes in his amendments (f) and (g) to new clause 1. It would surely be more appropriate to introduce such provisions in secondary legislation, which can be more detailed, and which would also be able to take on board matters arising from the consultation process and future proposals relating to the calculation of contributions. We would not want to be too prescriptive at this stage, and to find that we were bound by the criteria set out in the amendments. For example, requiring developers to pay our optional planning charge on a per dwelling basis might simply have the effect of encouraging developers to build large houses, which would not always be appropriate.
	Nor can I understand why the hon. Gentleman should have tabled amendments (h) and (i) to new clause 1, which, taken together, delete the provisions that we have proposed to ensure that developers do not have to pay twice in relation to the same matters. Our intention is that the regulations will ensure that, when a developer opts to pay the charge, he cannot also be asked to contribute through any residual negotiation in relation to matters that the local authority said were covered by the charge. These provisions are an essential ingredient of what we propose. I should also emphasise that, as with the existing system, it will be open to the developer to refuse to make any form of contribution whatever. In such a case, the local planning authority will still be required to consider the application on its planning merits, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. So it is not necessary to introduce the additional appeal mechanisms proposed in amendment (b) to new clause 1; the existing appeal mechanisms will still be available when a developer feels that a planning contribution is unreasonable.
	I detect concern that developers should not be asked to pay more than was originally indicated in the local authority policy on what it would seek through planning contributions. This appears to be the reason behind amendment (a) to new clause 2.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Keith Hill: I believe that I can offer reassurances on this point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. We envisage that the local authority and the developer will need to come to some form of agreement, as they do now, on whether they opt to make the contribution by the prescribed means or the negotiated route. That agreement will bind the developer to pay, and the local authority to accept, the charge agreed at that point. The form of the agreement could be decided between the local authority and the developer, or could take a standard form that the Government may prescribe in regulations or issue as guidance. I accept that there are concerns about this issue, and I shall be happy to consider further whether we have the right mechanisms in place to ensure that we have the right balance of flexibility and certainty for all parties in the process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to use the Brian Walden technique on the Minister to make sure that I have understood this. He has contradicted himself, because he said earlier that there would be an appeal mechanism against these tariffs, yet he now appears to be saying that there will be no such appeal, and that once they have been set in the local plan, that will be it. If that is the case, and if the developer cannot negotiate a satisfactory section 106 agreement and cannot appeal against a tariff, it could result in some areas remaining undeveloped.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. I was asked a general question, as I recall—I have been asked scores, if not hundreds, of questions during the debate, many of which I have attempted to respond to—and I certainly said that there were appeal mechanisms. Let me also say, in relation to a charge agreed, that in certain cases the circumstances might alter, and that it would be utterly irrational to say that we should not take account of changed circumstances when it could be impossible—for good reason—for the charge, as agreed, to be met. In such circumstances, there has to be flexibility in the arrangements and the possibility of the agreement being revisited. On the whole, however, we would not wish to encourage such a situation, and that is not an outcome that we expect to see as a result of our process of consultation or, ultimately, the drafting of regulations.
	I also detect concern that the criteria set by the planning authority for calculating the contributions should be certain, and that any changes should be consulted on. This seems to be the root of amendment (k) to new clause 1, which refers to the power to enable planning authorities to adjust amounts set by a criteria published in advance, for instance the retail prices index, and suggest that any changes should be made through the development plan document process. New clause 1(3) (d) provides planning authorities with the ability to update amounts set out in a document setting out the contribution without the need to go through a fresh consultation, when the principle of how the sum was calculated and what it would be used for has been consulted on, discussed and accepted. Both the nature of the amount and the criteria used to update the amount will have been subject to the development plan document procedure or an equivalent process. There is therefore no need for the additional safeguard proposed in amendment (k) to new clause 1.
	That also seems to be the root of amendment (l) to new clause 1. Again, the planning contribution document will set out what is expected. If the developer is of the view that other demands will be made of him in respect of similar matters, he will have the option to negotiate a contribution that could accommodate future demands from other statutory bodies. As I have said, the proposals we have put down provide flexibility.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: This will be the fourth or fifth time that I have done so, and I did issue a health warning at the beginning of these exchanges.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. These are complex matters, and when he does not reply satisfactorily to one of my amendments, it is helpful of him to give way. He has completely misunderstood the import of my amendment (l), which simply says:
	"The Secretary of State will fully reimburse any local authority where it can demonstrate that there is a net cost to them in preparing these regulations."
	That has nothing to do with what the Minister was saying. I ask him again what would happen if a local authority were overwhelmed by implementing these burdens. He has suggested to me privately that he would be prepared for his Department to provide advice. Will he now say what advice and consultancy the Department will be prepared to advance? Will it merely involve manpower, or will there be a financial contribution to help local authorities?

Keith Hill: If I have misunderstood the import of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, of course I apologise, and I withdraw my strictures on the subject. In regard to any assistance that might be given to local authorities, the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that we are engaged in a process of re-examining the whole ethos of support for the planning function in this country. As part and parcel of that, we now have in operation the so-called planning delivery grant, worth £350 million, to reward and incentivise local authorities in terms of their planning performance in the current three-year period, £50 million of which has already been allocated to local authorities. Although that investment is not ring-fenced, I am delighted to observe that, by and large, local planning authorities seem to be putting the grants into local planning resources. That has to be a good thing.
	There also seems to be some misunderstanding of the way in which the provisions will operate. I have explained that planning authorities will have to set out their contribution policy in a document, probably the development plan document, and new clause 1(3) provides for this. The planning authority will set out the circumstances in which it will consider accepting a contribution, but there may be circumstances in which the criteria are met but the authority decides not to require any contribution. We have debated this issue at some length already. I would therefore submit that amendment (c) to new clause 1 is not appropriate.
	Similarly, amendment (e) to new clause 1 would be inappropriate. The "necessity" requirement is not a statutory requirement and would therefore not make sense if referred to in legislation. The connection between the development and the contribution should be contained in the planning authority's planning contribution documents setting out the impacts likely to be caused by the development and how the contributions would be used to mitigate them.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendment (j) to new clause 1 suggests that the Secretary of State should not be entitled to reject a local planning contributions policy except on grounds set out in regulations. This would be highly unusual and is not consistent with the Secretary of State's powers in relation to other planning documents or decisions. The Secretary of State is, I suggest, entitled to take exception to planning documents that are not consistent with his policy, even if they are consistent with regulations, especially as the Bill contains a provision that local authorities should have regard to that policy. The provision in the amendment, if inserted, would prevent the Secretary of State from calling in any contributions policy on the grounds that it was not consistent with his affordable housing objectives. I cannot believe that that is right.
	Amendment (i) to new clause 2 also relates to development plan documents and the cost of preparing such a document. I believe this amendment is unnecessary, as administrative mechanisms are already in place, as I have described, to take into account new burdens on local authorities.
	Amendments (c), (f) and (g) to new clause 2 deal with issues that are already provided for or are not needed. An adjustment of an amount may be up or down, and there is no need to state that explicitly. I have explained the intention that the planning contributions agreed should be contained in agreements setting out the amount and method of payment. That should satisfy the concerns about certainty raised in amendments (f) and (g).
	Amendment (e) would remove the Secretary of State's ability to set out a procedure for the preparation and making of a planning contribution document if it was decided not to use a development plan document. Such a power is necessary, and to remove it would curtail the Secretary of State's ability to ensure that such a document is a clear and transparent statement of the planning authority's policy. Amendment (k) is not needed. The planning contribution document will set out the planning authority's policy, and will give reasons why contributions will be sought and why they will not be sought in some circumstances.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to consider the relationship between our proposals and those measures in the Bill for joint local development documents. He and other hon. Members referred to that issue and I assure them that it will be dealt with in the provisions relating to such plans. I am also happy to examine further the circumstances in which local land charges become satisfied, and the possibility that charge contributions could be paid at some point other than at the commencement of development. However, I do not think that the specific amendments proposed are necessarily the right way forward.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister did not respond to my amendment (h), which is an important amendment that tracks how this money is spent by each local authority. There is anecdotal evidence that, in some cases, 90 per cent. of this money goes into the general budget. Will the Minister please give us an assurance that the Audit Commission will have some role in tracking this money and ensuring that proper value for money is achieved from these contributions?

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that oversight. I shall write to him in due course, although he stopped me in my tracks as I was precisely at the point of dealing with that amendment. I was about to say that this issue was raised by the hon. Members for Ludlow, for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), and for Chipping Barnet, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), although he is not in his place at the moment. I recognise the concern raised by amendment (h) to new clause 2 that there should be proper accountability in relation to the spending of income raised by both the charge and negotiated routes. The Government have already taken action on this point by requiring local authorities to add information about planning obligations to their planning registers. I believe our new proposals should be welcomed.
	In our consultation document, we are proposing that the local authority should set out, in public and in advance, its policies on contributions in relation to the development for which it would seek a contribution and the matters it spends income on.
	Secondly, I want to make it entirely clear that we propose to take a power to enable the Secretary of State to insist that receipts are spent in the way envisaged in the public planning contributions policy. I hope that that offers particular assurance to the hon. Member for Ludlow, who has rightly raised this issue persistently.
	Thirdly, we propose a power to require local planning authorities to make an annual report on matters relating to planning contributions. Fourthly, we propose that the Secretary of State should be able to prescribe the procedure by which the charging policy is developed, and to take steps if he believes it is not being done appropriately or at all. Those are all sensible new steps, and they are on top of the existing requirements for probity and accountability in local government finance, for which the Audit Commission already has powers.
	As we move forward with this policy, I undertake to keep Members of both Houses fully informed of developments. I emphasise that these enabling amendments pave the way to a new approach to planning obligations and are the right way forward. They are designed to tackle the problems that have bedevilled this aspect of the planning process for too long. As I said in my statement last month, they offer speed and certainty where possible, and flexibility where necessary. I invite the hon. Member for Cotswold not to press his amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 113.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Planning Contribution: Regulations

'(1) This section applies for the purpose of regulations made under section (Planning contribution).
	(2) Maximum and minimum amounts may be prescribed in relation to a payment falling within section (Planning contribution) (5) (a).
	(3) Provision may be made to enable periodic adjustment of the criteria mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (d).
	(4) The local planning authority may be required to publish an annual report containing such information in relation to the planning contribution as is prescribed.
	(5) If a document is prescribed for the purposes of section (Planning contribution) (3) the regulations may prescribe—
	(a) the procedure for its preparation and the time at which it must be published;
	(b) the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the Secretary of State may take steps in relation to the preparation of the document.
	(6) Provision may be made for the enforcement by the local planning authority of the terms of a planning contribution including provision—
	(a) for a person deriving title to the land from the contributor to be bound by the terms of the contribution;
	(b) for a condition to be attached to any planning permission relating to the land requiring the contribution to be made before any development is started;
	(c) for the enforcement of a planning contribution in respect of land which is Crown land within the meaning of section 293(1) of the principal Act.
	(7) The regulations may—
	(a) require the local planning authority to apply receipts from planning contributions made by the prescribed means only to purposes mentioned in section (Planning contribution) (3) (c);
	(b) make provision for setting out in writing the terms of the planning contribution;
	(c) make provision in relation to the modification or discharge of a planning contribution.
	(8) The regulations may—
	(a) make different provision in relation to the areas of different local planning authorities or different descriptions of local planning authority;
	(b) exclude their application (in whole or in part) in relation to the area of one or more local planning authorities or descriptions of local planning authority.'.—[Paul Clark.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Planning Contribution: Wales

'In relation to land in Wales, sections (Planning contribution) and (Planning contribution: regulations) apply subject to the following modifications—
	(a) references to the Secretary of State must be construed as references to the National Assembly for Wales;
	(b) the reference to a development plan document must be construed as a reference to a local development plan (within the meaning of section 57).'—[Paul Clark.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Compensation: Advance Payments to Mortgagees

'(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 52 (right to advance payment of compensation)—
	(a) after subsection (1) there are inserted the following subsections—
	"(1A) If the acquiring authority have taken possession of part of the land—
	(a) specified in a notice of entry, or
	(b) in respect of which a payment into court has been made,
	the compensation mentioned in subsection (1) is the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of the interest in the whole of the land.
	(1B) Notice of entry and payment into court must be construed in accordance with section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961.",
	(b) for subsection (6) there is substituted the following subsection—
	"(6) If the land is subject to a mortgage sections 52ZA and 52ZB apply."
	(3) After section 52 of that Act there are inserted the following sections—
	"52ZA Advance payments: land subject to mortgage
	(1) This section applies if—
	(a) an acquiring authority take possession of land,
	(b) a request is made in accordance with section 52(2) for an advance payment, and
	(c) the land is subject to a mortgage the principal of which does not exceed 90 per cent of the relevant amount.
	(2) The advance payment made to the claimant must be reduced by the amount the acquiring authority think will be required by them to secure the release of the interest of the mortgagee (or all the mortgagees if there is more than one).
	(3) The acquiring authority must pay to the mortgagee the amount the acquiring authority think will be required by them to secure the release of the mortgagee's interest, if—
	(a) the claimant so requests, and
	(b) the mortgagee consents to the making of the payment.
	(4) If there is more than one mortgagee—
	(a) subsection (3) applies to each mortgagee individually, but
	(b) payment must not be made to a mortgagee before the interest of each mortgagee whose interest has priority to his interest is released.
	(5) The amount of the advance payment made to the claimant under section 52 and the amount of the payments made to mortgagees under this section must not in aggregate exceed 90 per cent of the relevant amount.
	(6) Subsection (7) applies if—
	(a) the acquiring authority estimated the compensation,
	(b) it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low and they revise the estimate, and
	(c) a request is made by the claimant in accordance with section 52(2).
	(7) The provisions of subsections (2) to (5) must be re-applied on the basis of the revised estimate.
	52ZB Advance payments: land subject to mortgage exceeding 90% threshold
	(1) This section applies if—
	(a) an acquiring authority take possession of land,
	(b) a request is made in accordance with section 52(2) for an advance payment, and
	(c) the land is subject to a mortgage the principal of which exceeds 90 per cent of the relevant amount.
	(2) No advance payment is to be made to the claimant.
	(3) But the acquiring authority must pay to the mortgagee the amount found under subsection (4), if—
	(a) the claimant so requests; and
	(b) the mortgagee consents to the making of the payment.
	(4) The amount is whichever is the lesser of—
	(a) 90% of the value of the land;
	(b) the principal of the mortgagee's mortgage.
	(5) The value of the land is the value—
	(a) agreed by the claimant and the acquiring authority, or (failing such agreement)
	(b) estimated by the acquiring authority.
	(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the value of the land is to be calculated in accordance with rule 2 of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (market value), whether or not compensation is or is likely to be assessed in due course in accordance with rule 5 of that section (equivalent re-instatement).
	(7) If there is more than one mortgagee, payment must not be made to a mortgagee until the interest of each mortgagee whose interest has priority to his interest is released.
	(8) But the total payments under subsection (3) must not in any event exceed 90% of the value of the land.
	(9) Subsection (10) applies if—
	(a) the acquiring authority estimated the compensation,
	(b) it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low and they revise the estimate,
	(c) the condition in section 52ZA(1) (b) would have been satisfied if the revised estimate had been used instead of their estimate, and
	(d) a request is made by the claimant in accordance with section 52(2).
	(10) The provisions of section 52ZA(2) to (5) must be applied on the basis of the revised estimate.
	(11) If—
	(a) the acquiring authority estimated the value of the land,
	(b) it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low and they revise the estimate, and
	(c) a request is made by the claimant in writing,
	any balance found to be due to a mortgagee on the basis of the revised estimate is payable in accordance with this section.
	52ZC Land subject to mortgage: supplementary
	(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 52ZA and 52ZB.
	(2) The claimant must provide the acquiring authority with such information as they may require to enable them to give effect to those sections.
	(3) A request under section 52ZA(3) or 52ZB(3) must be made in writing and must be accompanied by the written consent of the mortgagee.
	(4) Subsections (4) and (8) to (9) of section 52 apply to a payment which may be or is made under section 52ZA or 52ZB as they apply to a payment which may be or is made under section 52.
	(5) The relevant amount is the amount of the compensation agreed or estimated as mentioned in section 52(3).
	(6) If the land is subject to more than one mortgage, the reference in sections 52ZA(1) (c) and 52ZB(1) (c) to the principal is to the aggregate of the principals of all of the mortgagees.
	(7) A payment made to a mortgagee under section 52ZA or 52ZB—
	(a) must be applied by the mortgagee in or towards the discharge of the principal, interest and costs and any other money due under the mortgage;
	(b) must be taken to be a payment on account of compensation and treated for the purposes of section 52(10) as if it were an advance payment made under section 52;
	(c) must be taken, with effect from the date of the payment, to reduce by the amount of the payment the amount in respect of which interest accrues for the purposes of section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, any bond under Schedule 3 to that Act or section 85 of the Lands Clauses Compensation Act 1845;
	(d) must be taken into account for the purposes of determining any payments (or payments into court) which may be made for the purposes of sections 14 to 16 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
	(8) If the amount, or aggregate amount, of any payments under—
	(a) sections 52 and 52ZA, or
	(b) section 52ZB,
	on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation exceed the compensation as finally determined or agreed, the excess must be repaid by the claimant.
	(9) No payment must be made to a mortgagee—
	(a) if any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (10) applies, or
	(b) if the compulsory acquisition is only of a right over land.
	(10) The circumstances are—
	(a) payment has been made under section 14(2) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;
	(b) a notice under section 14(3) of that Act has been given;
	(c) there is an agreement under section 15(1) or 16(1) of that Act or the matter has been referred to the Lands Tribunal under that section.
	(11) The claimant in relation to settled land for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1925 is the persons entitled to give a discharge for capital money."
	(4) In section 52A (right to interest where advance payment made) for subsection (2) there is substituted—
	"(2) If the authority make a payment under section 52(1) to any person on account of the compensation—
	(a) they must at the same time make a payment to that person of accrued interest, for the period beginning with the date of entry, on the amount of the compensation agreed or estimated under section 52(3) (the total amount), and
	(b) the difference between the paid amount and the total amount is an unpaid balance for the purposes of this section.
	(2A) The paid amount is—
	(a) the amount of the payment under section 52(1), or
	(b) if the land is subject to a mortgage, the aggregate of that amount and the amount of any payment made under section 52ZA(3).".'.—[Yvette Cooper.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	New clause 4 deals with a proposal that we were keen to introduce in the Bill, but for reasons of complexity we were unable to get a complete draft of it in time for our deliberations in Committee. We have, however, circulated the details to members of the Committee, and to the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others, to ensure wide consultation.
	The new clause deals with situations where property is subject to compulsory purchase order, where agreement has not been reached about the final level of compensation, and where the owner has moved out but has a mortgage on the property. Currently, it is possible for advance payments of compensation to be considered and given. Acquiring authorities can pay up to 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation that they have proposed. However, if the owner has a mortgage, the situation becomes more complicated. The acquiring authority then has to withhold the amount that it estimates will be needed to pay off the mortgage. If the mortgage is still worth more than 90 per cent. of the estimated compensation, the acquiring authority cannot pay out anything at all. That is to protect acquiring authorities against having to pay out twice.
	If the owner does not use the cash from the advance payments to pay off the mortgage, and then disappears, the acquiring authority may still have to pay off the mortgage in order to get the property. The trouble is that the consequence of such protection is that property owners can find themselves removed from their home and still paying the mortgage—including the interest—until the matter is finally resolved. If the case has to go to the Lands Tribunal, it takes time. In the meantime, such people will probably need to pay new accommodation costs as well.
	New clause 4 aims to address those problems. It allows the advance compensation to continue to be withheld from the mortgage holder, but to be paid instead to the mortgage lender. The payments can go directly to the mortgage lender, and in many cases will pay off the mortgage entirely. Where they do not, they will still reduce the debt on which the owner has to pay interest. The new clause still distinguishes between cases where the outstanding mortgage is less than 90 per cent. of the estimated compensation, and those where it is more.
	In cases where the mortgage is less than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, the acquiring authority can still pay advance compensation of 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation in total, divided between the mortgage lender and the mortgage holder accordingly, but where the mortgage is worth more than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, the acquiring authority will need to pay out 90 per cent. of the value of the land to the mortgage lender. There is a reason for this. Where the mortgage is very high in relation to the value of the compensation, other factors may need to be considered in resolving the final amount of the compensation to be paid to different parties. For example, if there is negative equity, section 15(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 provides for the balance of what is to be paid to the mortgage holder and the lender to be determined, if necessary, by the Lands Tribunal, if it cannot be determined through agreement. We are not changing these provisions, so it is important that the advance compensation payments do not pre-judge that process.
	I turn briefly to the detail of the new clause. Subsection (3)—the important part—inserts new sections 52ZA, B and C. The purpose of new section 52ZA is to deal with cases where the mortgage principal does not exceed 90 per cent. of the estimated total compensation due to the claimant. Subsection (2) requires the acquiring authority to reduce the advance payment to the claimant by the amount that it thinks will be required to secure the release of the mortgagee's interest. Subsection (3) requires the authority to pay that amount to the mortgagee if the claimant so requests, and if the mortgagee consents.
	New section 52ZB applies where the land is subject to a mortgage and the principal exceeds 90 per cent. of the total. Under those circumstances, subsection (2) specifies that no payment is to be made to the claimant. Subsection (3) requires the authority to make an advance payment to the mortgagee if the claimant so requests and the mortgagee consents. Subsection (8) specifies that the total amount paid out to mortgagees must not exceed 90 per cent. of the value of the land.
	New section 52ZC includes other provisions, such as a requirement for the claimant to provide such information as the acquiring authority may need to deal with a request for an advance payment to a mortgagee.
	These proposals command widespread support, certainly from those whom we have consulted. This is a sensible measure that simply allows us to deal with the current unfairness and the difficult situation in which mortgage holders whose property is subject to compulsory purchase orders find themselves. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This matter arose during the proceedings of the second Standing Committee. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) said that this clause would be introduced, and the Opposition welcome it. Where land is subject to a mortgage, whether it is above or below the 90 per cent. level, it is sensible that provision be made so that advance compensation of up to 90 per cent., depending on the circumstances, can be paid to the mortgagee or lender. Such a provision is eminently sensible and should be applauded. We also welcome new section 52ZC and the other measures. Provision should of course be made so that somebody who has information must provide it, be it the lender or the mortgagor. That way, we can see exactly what the situation is.
	There is one matter on which I am not clear, however, and perhaps the Minister would like to say a little about it. Where the mortgage is less than 90 per cent. of the value and the mortgagee and mortgagor cannot reach agreement, who will arbitrate and decide where payment should be made to? Of course, that point also applies to cases involving negative equity. In such cases, both the mortgagee and mortgagor will suffer. Who will decide who is to suffer in what proportion? It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the existing conciliation or appeal mechanisms in respect of these provisions. That said, this highly technical new clause is widely welcomed by the industry, and by the Opposition.

Matthew Green: I rise briefly to add our support to the new clause. The Government are clearly right to introduce changes in respect of land to which a mortgage is attached. However, the new clause does not entirely deal with the issue of negative equity, and some concerns remain.
	Clearly that could cause considerable financial distress to the people concerned, so we should like to see further action on that. However, in so far as it goes, the new clause is welcome.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the support given by hon. Members to the proposal. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made two points. The first concerned what happens when the mortgage is less than 90 per cent. and agreement cannot be reached. That is exactly the type of case we are talking about: where a matter may have to go to the Lands Tribunal, agreement has not yet been reached or overall compensation is being withheld. Those are the circumstances in which advance payment should be made.
	If the mortgagee does not consent to receive the money, there will be no advance payment. Advance payments can be made to the lender only if the lender and the holder agree that that should be the case. In many cases, that will be in the interests of the lender and the holder, so one would expect them to agree to the advance payments unless there were some special circumstances that required complex arrangements. Paying the advance payments to the lender requires the consent of both parties.
	The second question was what happens when there is negative equity. There are arrangements under the 1965 Act that provide that the overall amount of compensation to be paid to different parties should be agreed between the lender, the holder and the acquiring authority. We are not proposing to change the current procedures. The only important matter in terms of changing the advance payment arrangements is that we do not prejudge the process under the 1965 Act of resolving the final amount of compensation and who should receive it.
	Where there is a dispute about how much should be paid between the lender, the holder and the acquiring authority in a case where there is negative equity, the matter can go to the Lands Tribunal. The only additional relevance to the advance payment arrangements is that the amount paid out in advance to the mortgage lender will be restricted to 90 per cent. of the value of the land, rather than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, to ensure that we do not prejudge the final decision of the Lands Tribunal or the final negotiation and agreement between the different parties about the total value of the compensation and who should be paid.
	The advance payment arrangements do not change the position in terms of negative equity: they recognise that this is a complex matter and try not to amend the arrangements. These are sensible proposals and will be in the interests of mortgage lenders and of holders who are in this situation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the decision to refer the case to the Lands Tribunal apply to the 90 per cent. advance payment as well as to the eventual payment, in circumstances where there is negative equity, or are we talking only about the eventual payment and the split between the mortgagee and mortgagor?

Yvette Cooper: Where the mortgage is worth more than 90 per cent. of the value of the compensation, only 90 per cent. of the value of the land can be paid to the mortgage lender; no money can be paid to the mortgage holder under those circumstances. The Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies to all circumstances in which the value of the mortgaged land is less than the principal, interest and costs secured on the land. Under those circumstances, the compensation payable is to be settled by agreement between the mortgagee, the mortgagor and the acquiring authority. Failing such agreement, the amount payable by the acquiring authority is to be determined by the Lands Tribunal. The tribunal should not be involved at the earlier stage in determining whether the value of the mortgage is greater or less than the 90 per cent. figure; that should be decided by the acquiring authority. The Lands Tribunal's role is to decide on the eventual payment if the parties concerned cannot reach agreement.
	I hope that that clarifies all the points raised, and I commend the new clause to the House.
	Question put and agreed to
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Tree Preservation Orders: Forestry Commissioners

'For section 200 of the principal Act (Orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioners interested) there is substituted the following section—
	"200 Tree preservation orders: Forestry Commissioners
	(1) A tree preservation order does not have effect in respect of anything done—
	(a) by or on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners on land placed at their disposal in pursuance of the Forestry Act 1967 or otherwise under their management or supervision;
	(b) by or on behalf of any other person in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners under a forestry dedication covenant (within the meaning of section 5 of that Act) which is for the time being in force or under conditions of a grant or loan made under section 1 of the Forestry Act 1979.
	(2) A reference to a provision of the Forestry Act 1967 or the Forestry Act 1979 includes a reference to a corresponding provision replaced by that provision or any earlier corresponding provision.".'.—[Keith Hill.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with the following: Government new clause 21—Tree preservation orders: Scotland.
	Government amendments Nos. 1 to 7, 25, 61 to 65, 8, 66 to 71, 10 to 12 and 74.

Keith Hill: This very large group of two new clauses and 26 other amendments contains Government amendments to the Crown application provisions in part 7 of the Bill, together with some other associated changes. They could all be classified as fairly small-scale improvements and as tidying-up, but some will require more explanation than others.
	With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to present my remarks topic by topic so that the House can keep track of what is going on. I hope that all hon. Members will bear with me in what will inevitably be a detailed exposition.
	New clause 5—together with new clause 21 and amendments Nos. 25 and 69—is about tree preservation and the Forestry Commissioners. In Committee, the Government tabled an amendment to section 200 of the principal Act that dealt with the effect of tree preservation orders on land in which the Forestry Commission has an interest.
	Given that the Crown will no longer be immune from planning controls, we included a provision in the Bill to ensure that the tree work carried out by the Forestry Commission in line with its statutory duties would not become subject to the controls of tree preservation orders. This would place the Forestry Commission in more or less the same position as private landowners, whose tree work is also unaffected by tree preservation orders when carried out in accordance with a management plan approved by the commission.
	The Government have looked again at the detail of section 200, as amended by clause 80, which, at subsection (1), also prevents local authorities from making tree preservation orders without first obtaining the commission's consent. Following consultation with the commission, we believe that this general restriction is unnecessary.
	New Clause 5 removes the requirement on local authorities to obtain the Forestry Commission's agreement before making tree preservation orders on land that has been placed at the commission's disposal, or on privately owned land that is subject to a management scheme approved by the commission.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will local authorities still be able to make tree preservation orders on Forestry Commission land, or does the new clause effectively preclude that possibility?

Keith Hill: I hope to come on to that in the course of my exposition. One never knows—inspiration may wing its way to me. Indeed, I believe that my next point may be germane to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry.
	In effect, local planning authorities will be free to make tree preservation orders wherever they believe it is in the interests of amenity to do so, both on Crown land and private land. I should emphasise that no order could in any way interfere with the tree work carried out by the Forestry Commission or by private individuals under commission-approved schemes such as the woodland grant scheme. The new clause makes that absolutely clear. But an order might serve a useful and immediate purpose in cases where the commission's interest in the land comes to an end.
	Amendment No. 25 deletes clause 80, which new clause 5 will replace. New clause 21 makes the same change to the equivalent section of the principal Scottish planning Act, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Amendment No. 69 deletes clause 90, which new clause 21 will replace.
	I now turn to the details of the appointment of special advocates when applications are subject to directions concerning national security. These are covered by amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 61. I intend to speak mainly to amendment No. 1, the lead amendment of this sub-group. The amendment is in two parts, the first of which deletes new section 321(6) of the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the original provision which was modelled closely on the requirements of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedure.
	In light of the concerns raised in Committee by the hon. Gentleman, who quoted representations from the Law Society, and the hon. Members for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), that the provisions were unduly restrictive, we have reconsidered this issue as I promised. We accept that competent planning specialists who have the appropriate experience and skills could carry out the function of a special advocate just as effectively as legally qualified representatives. Moreover, the Attorney-General will have responsibility for those appointments, which includes ensuring that special advocates have the necessary skills to do the job. We expect to set up a panel of suitably qualified and vetted people from which the Attorney-General can choose. That is yet another example of a listening Government responding to sensible representations.
	The second part of amendment No. 1 inserts a new subsection (6) into section 321 of the principal Act. That allows the Attorney-General to appoint a special advocate for the purposes of the planning inquiry after a section 321 direction has been made. That is in contrast to the situation envisaged in new subsection (5), where the special advocate is appointed before a decision is made and can make representations as to whether a direction should be made. The new provision adds flexibility where, for example, all the parties agree that a direction should be made. The Secretary of State can therefore make the direction without waiting for a special advocate to be appointed.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make parallel changes to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. Amendment No. 61 makes an equivalent change to the Scottish provisions in clause 86 on the appointment of special advocates.
	Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 62 and 63 deal with the way in which various requirements of the urgency procedure are prescribed. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 make technical amendments to new section 293A in clause 77. At present, various requirements for publicising urgent Crown applications and the associated documents, and for specifying statutory consultees, are to be prescribed. Without any further qualification, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations, as specified in section 336(1) of the principal Act. We think that the correct place for specifying those requirements is in the general development procedure order, which specifies the requirements for publicising ordinary planning applications. The amendments will therefore enable the Secretary of State to specify the requirements in the most appropriate subordinate legislation. Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 make equivalent changes to the relevant Scottish provisions in the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 64 and 65 deal with preventing disclosure of sensitive documents in cases subject to the urgent application procedure. Amendment No. 6 makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not be required to disclose documents relating to planning applications that are the subject of national security directions made under section 321(3) of the principal Act. It would be nonsensical to put into the public domain, under the urgency provisions, documents that are highly sensitive and cannot be disclosed at a public inquiry. Amendment No. 7 makes similar provision for the listed buildings provisions. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 make equivalent amendments to the relevant Scottish provisions in clauses 87 and 88. The amendments remove a conflict in the legislation, and I commend them to the House.
	I turn now to some minor drafting amendments, Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 amend cross-references that were rendered incorrect by printing changes to the numbers of the new sections to which they refer. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 correct a grammatical error by removing the superfluous word "means" from the relevant definitions of "appropriate authority" in the listed buildings provisions.
	I now turn to some Scottish provisions on enforcement: amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68. They introduce provisions that will supplement and clarify the enforcement mechanisms available against the Crown. Under each of the three main Scottish planning Acts, the planning authority will be able to apply to the Court of Session for an order declaring an act or omission of the Crown to be unlawful. The inclusion of such a provision is common in Scottish legislation, which exempts the Crown from criminal liability for contravention of statute. Its effect is that, although the Crown will be immune from criminal liability, the planning authority will none the less, in an appropriate case, be able to seek a court order to declare that any contravention is unlawful.
	Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 make minor changes for Scotland, simply ensuring that provisions for the procedures for making statutory instruments appear in one clause rather than two. Amendments Nos. 74 and 78 correct an omission from the existing redundant provisions of the principal Scottish planning Act repealed by the Bill. The repealed provision in question relates to agreements relating to Crown land. A saving provision is not required to preserve the legal effect of such agreements.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Although the wording and tidiness of new clause 5 are better than what is in the Bill, if the Bill had not been rushed through Committee, we might have improved it to the extent that new clause 5 would have been unnecessary. Having said that, it obviously makes a great deal of sense to remove Crown immunity from the Forestry Commission.
	I am still slightly concerned that local authorities' role in making tree preservation orders on commission land will be quite impossible, but perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me on that. Of course, similar provisions apply in Scotland.
	On the whole, the commission manages its land pretty responsibly. When I have been involved in woodland grant schemes, among other things, on my own land, those have been administered properly. I would not normally see a need for tree preservation orders in those circumstances. How many orders have ever been placed on commission land? I imagine that there have been very few.
	I am delighted to see amendments Nos. 1 and 2 because, as the Minister points out, Opposition Members made a strong case for them. I made a strong case from my experience: having worked for the Property Services Agency and having been subject to the Official Secrets Act, I can see no reason why properly qualified surveyors should not be able to make just as good a case as a legal advocate in cases involving national security. Can the Minister say a little more about how this panel of qualified and suitable people will work? Will they, for instance, have to have signed the Official Secrets Act? That would seem to me to be a fairly good prerequisite. Clearly, in planning matters, it is important that there are no leaks of plans and so on. I therefore welcome amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which, as the Minister says, stop confidential plans being leaked inadvertently into the public domain. I also welcome the similar provisions in Scotland.
	On provisions in Scotland, can the Minister say a little about amendments Nos. 66 and 67? I understand that the Crown cannot be liable for criminal prosecutions in Scotland, but he said that an order may be sought that something done by or on behalf of the Crown was unlawful, and that a certificate can be obtained in those circumstances. If such a certificate were obtained, what sanctions would exist against that person acting on behalf of the Crown?
	I welcome amendments Nos. 70 and 71. Clearly, any simplification of the Bill must be desirable, so one statutory instrument to deal with two clauses rather than two separate statutory instruments must be good. Again, the tidying-up amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which remove the superfluous word "means", are clearly sensible.
	With the exception of the national security amendments dealing with persons who can appear at planning inquiries, and the new clause on tree preservation orders, the amendments are largely of a technical and drafting nature. The Opposition welcome the new clauses and amendments in this group, and we will not seek to oppose the Government on this occasion.

Matthew Green: We, too, welcome both the new clauses and the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are in response to a point that several members of the Committee raised. I am glad that the Government have listened to that and that they have made it clear that it is not just legally qualified people who can be positively vetted—that is the simplest way of putting it. That is a welcome step forward. The other amendments provide clarification in a number of ways, particularly on the issue of documents that could have an effect on national security being forced into the open by the Bill, which none of us would want. In that respect, we support amendment No. 7 in particular. I do not wish to detain the House further. Likewise, we will not oppose the Government on these matters.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen for their support on behalf of their parties for the amendments, which I am pleased to acknowledge that they played an extremely helpful part in securing.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked two rather precise questions. He asked how many tree preservation orders had been placed on the Forestry Commission. I must confess that I do not have that information at my fingertips, but of course I shall undertake to write to him on that. In connection with amendments Nos. 66 and 67, which concern an application by a planning authority in Scotland to the Court of Session, declaring an act or omission of the Crown to be unlawful, he asked what sanctions were available in those circumstances. There are no extra sanctions, but the provisions give the local authority leverage in getting the Crown to comply, which is their purpose.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the proposed panel. Of course, matters in general relating to the panel are for the Attorney-General, but he asked specifically whether members of the proposed panel will have had to sign the Official Secrets Act, to which the answer is yes.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked for reassurance about the rights of local authorities to make tree preservation orders. Let me say, as I said earlier, that local planning authorities will in effect be free to make tree preservation orders wherever they believe that it is in the interests of amenity to do so, on both Crown land and private land. With those assurances, I hope that he will be content with the proposals.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister will know that in discussions in Committee, the Crown takes many different guises. Sometimes it is land in the name of Her Majesty as well as land in the name of the Crown. Of course, the Crown immunity provisions discussed in Committee by and large treat both categories the same. Can I assume from what he has just said that the provisions in relation to tree preservation orders will treat both categories of land in the same way?

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. I think that our general expectation is that the answer is yes, but we will have to look at the matter in more detail—as he is only too well aware, I do not support the theory of ministerial omniscience. I think that he almost answered his own question in that regard—we will check it out, I think that he is right, but I will write to him on that subject, too.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21
	 — 
	Tree Preservation Orders: Scotland

'For section 162 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (Orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioners interested) there is substituted the following section—
	"162 Tree preservation: Forestry Commissioners
	(1) A tree preservation order does not have effect in respect of anything done—
	(a) by or on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners on land placed at their disposal in pursuance of the Forestry Act 1967 or otherwise under their management or supervision:
	(b) by or on behalf of any other person in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners under a forestry dedication agreement (within the meaning of section 5 of that Act) which is for the time being in force or under conditions of a grant or loan made under section 1 of the Forestry Act 1979.
	(2) A reference to a provision of the Forestry Act 1967 or the Forestry Act 1979 includes a reference to a corresponding provision replaced by that provision or any earlier corresponding provision.".'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Planning Permission For Subdivision Of Agricultural Holdings For Purpose Of Sale

'. After section 57 of the principal Act (planning permission required for development) there is inserted the following section—
	"57A Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purposes of sale
	(1) Planning permission is required for—
	(a) the subdivision of an agricultural holding for the purpose of sale; and
	(b) the sale of an agricultural holding which has been subdivided since the appointed date other than for the purpose of sale.
	(2) In this section—
	(a) 'subdivision' means land divided into one or more units of less than one hectare, and 'subdivided' shall be interpreted accordingly;
	(b) 'agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
	(c) 'the appointed date' means 1st July 1993.".'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18—Failure to comply with notice to ensure proper maintenance of Green Belt land—
	'After section 219 (Execution and cost of works required by a 215 notice) of the principal Act there is inserted the following section—
	"Failure to comply with notice to ensure proper maintenance of Green Belt land
	(1) This section applies when a notice has been served under section 215 in respect of land which is designated as Green Belt land.
	(2) If, within the period specified in a notice under section 215 in accordance with subsection (2) of that section, or within such extended period as the local planning authority who served the notice may allow, any steps required by the notice to be taken have not been taken, the local authority may acquire the land compulsorily.
	(3) Land which is compulsorily purchased under this section shall be made available for community use which is consistent with its Green Belt status.
	(4) In this section "Green Belt land" shall have the same meaning as in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938.".'.

Andrew Turner: Members who attended the proceedings of the Committee will be familiar with my argument on this new clause, so I will not detain the House indefinitely on the subject. I want to start, however, by quoting what the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said at the end of the debate on what was then new clause 2 in Standing Committee A. I am glad to see her in her place, albeit with a cold, on which I sympathise with her. She undertook in Committee to write to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) on this clause but not more rapidly than on the subject of car boot sales, and I understand that she has written to him on the subject of car boot sales. She went on to say:
	"Hon. Members must recognise that to deal with the problem"—
	the problem with which my new clause seeks to deal—
	"we need a solution that will work. Many of the solutions that have been offered, albeit in good faith, could lead to other problems or have difficulties attached".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 October 2003; c. 159.]
	She accepted that the solution was provided in good faith, and I accept that it may lead to other problems, but that does not make it any less necessary that a solution be found to the problem of the division of agricultural land. As I said in Committee, that problem has arisen in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), as well as in many others.
	Agricultural land is a valuable asset, especially when it ceases to be agricultural. Many people find many ways of using agricultural land by avoiding the planning regulations and, in many cases, the planning process. Although ways have been found to address that, they have not been effective. Indeed, they have been slow and ponderous and have not given confidence to local people that the problem in their backyard or adjoining field—or, in my constituency, at a number of sites that have been widely advertised—will be remedied. I look forward to a remedy that will work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has previously brought the problem to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) has tabled a new clause that relates to greenfield land in particular. However, the mischief to which I refer takes place not only on greenfield land and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but in other parts of the country. One particular example in my constituency is Alverstone, where 10 acres of the east Yar flood plain have been split into 27 plots, ranging in size from 0.15 acres to 0.73 acres, and advertised on the internet by a firm called Gladwish Land Sales. The site is important for nature conservation and within an area of outstanding natural beauty. It borders what the Environment Agency defines as a main river—Scotchells brook—and Alverstone Mead, a local nature reserve. It is a natural relict fen wetland area with peat-based soil, expanding reed beds and typical fauna, including water voles. One caravan has already been sited on a plot, without planning permission, and within 1 m of the brook bank, despite the lack of sewage disposal points, mains water supply or rubbish disposal. The public water supply intake is situated in the River Yar about 200 m away. That is a brief picture of one area in which the problem has arisen, but it is not the only area even in my constituency.
	In Committee, I said that Gladwish Land Sales advertised a wide range of sites around the country. People are persuaded to buy them, perhaps because they think that they will obtain some development value in the long term or because they want to situate a caravan there, perhaps to use for holidays. The problem is that planning applications seldom precede such subdivision of agricultural land. A summary of land available, which was taken off the internet in May 2001—I have no reason to believe that any less a quantity of land is available today—describes the availability of half a dozen plots in Ashmansworthy in Devon; two in Ashwater; one in Barnhurst, near Bexleyheath, which has been sold; 14 in Bellingdon; two in Bethersden in Kent; and several others in Lamberton wood near Bethersden. I could continue through the alphabet.
	We have heard about the methods used to address this problem, but they are not working. The Minister made it clear that the amendment that I had tabled would not deal with the problem satisfactorily, but she did not table an amendment that would. I hope that she will give us some comfort on that point tonight, because the practice is spoiling rural areas. Agricultural land is being abused for financial gain. I have no objection to financial gain, but in this case it is being achieved by avoiding the relevant regulations.
	I first heard of the practice when Barry Abraham, who is a councillor in my constituency, was quoted in the County Press as saying:
	"I don't know if there is anything we can do through the LGA about this practice of people buying land on its 'hope value'."
	Despite references to the Local Government Association, no satisfactory conclusion has been reached for dealing with that mischief.
	The National Farmers Union also agrees that the problem should be addressed. It wrote to me when the Bill was in Committee to say:
	"We have seen with interest your new Clause 2 . . . The problems arising from the legal—but in our view objectionable—business of subdividing and selling plots of agricultural land, often to purchasers who perceive almost certainly incorrectly that their land will increase dramatically in value, have been around for a number of years."
	The first occasion on which I was aware of the problem being identified was back in 1992 when the proprietors of Gladwish were named in this Chamber as the perpetrators of this mischief. Here we are, 11 years later, and still no solution has been found.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend clarify exactly what the mischief is that can be controlled by the planning process? It is not the mere process of subdividing the land, because people have the freedom to do what they wish with their land. Surely the mischief is that when the plots are subdivided, fences, walls, gates, roadways, caravans and other paraphernalia are necessary. Before the subdivision, the plot is a clear grass field, but afterwards it is a complete mess.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend is right. The mischief of subdivision, if we define it as development, could of course be dealt with under the planning Acts, but the mischief of the physical manifestation of subdivision amounts to development so it should already be covered by a requirement for planning permission. Obtrusive divisions such as the erection of fences, the positioning of caravans—even if they are occupied for only 28 days a year or less they are on the site for the whole year—the erection of patios or the planting of gardens can all transform a hitherto rural area into one that it would be generous to describe as suburban.
	The problem does not manifest itself only in the physical division of land but in the division of ownership. Maintenance of agricultural value and maintenance of landscape are much more difficult to enforce, even in an area of outstanding natural beauty, where ownership is divided into penny packets, so that is another reason to deal with that mischief—[Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is nodding.
	No one has yet proposed a perfect solution, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that the issue needs to be taken seriously and dealt with urgently. In Committee, I received certain responses that indicated the difficulty of the issue so I have tabled the new clause so that, if possible, a solution might be found—I accept that it may be difficult—that is satisfactory and can be incorporated in the Bill before it leaves the other place.
	I commend the new clause to the House.

Richard Ottaway: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I do not know whether it is relevant, but I declare an interest in that my wife has been engaged in successful litigation over a right of way on a piece of land that was originally sold by Gladwish Land Sales—in my view, in a deceptive way.
	As my hon. Friend said, the matter is extremely complex. My new clause was tabled as a probing clause and I acknowledge the Minister's problem in coming up with a solution. In my judgment, there is no easy solution.My hon. Friend set out the problem clearly. It is a scam—no less, no more. Large, attractive pieces of land are bought at prices that verge on the agricultural rate. The fields are marked out with pegs and subdivided into small plots in a way that suggests to the gullible and unsuspecting that they can be developed. It has to be acknowledged that the people selling the land do not actually say, "You will get planning permission and get through the development barriers"; they say, "You may get planning permission". As the House knows, many political issues turn on the word "may". Like my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the Chamber, I have constituents who have found themselves subjected to such a scam.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is being generous to some of the companies that sell such plots. For a time, at least one such company suggested on its website that it was unethical for prospective purchasers to approach the local planning department to find out about the development potential of the land before completing their purchase. I understand that that statement has been removed, but it shows the lengths to which some companies will go.

Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The whole history of such cases shows us how close to the wind those people operate. We only need to consider the sums of money involved.
	When I took the hon. Gentleman's admirable intervention, I was about to discuss a piece of land called Kenley pastures, which is next to Kenley house, a grade 2 listed building. There are not many such places inside the Greater London boundaries. The land is outstandingly attractive and the Greater London Authority has confirmed that it is not only in the green belt, but in a nature conservation site, so that gives some indication of its quality.
	The 37-acre site was used by the local community for recreational purposes. Local families rented plots where they kept horses or ponies. The land was a centre for equestrian activity. It was sold for just over £250,000, which was just above the agricultural rate. It was split into a number of small plots of about a quarter of an acre and marketed at £20,000 to £22,000 an acre. To save hon. Members the task of working it out, if all the land were sold at that rate it would raise £3 million—purchased for £250,000, sold for £3 million. Of course, unsuspecting people are funding that scam.
	It is said that a fool and his money are easily parted, and of course it is incumbent on anyone purchasing a piece of land to take legal advice. However, I understand that the companies tell people, "Don't worry, we will even pay your solicitors' fees for you. Better still, we will provide you with legal advice—you don't need to commission your own." Extraordinarily, people fall for that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of the company in question. Does he know of anyone who has tried to complain to the local trading standards office about misleading information given out in relation to the sales?

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend pre-empts me. Inquiries have been made to the trading standards office, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Financial Services Authority. I shall deal with their replies shortly.
	It is clear that planning permission will not be given and that there will be no development of the land. People find out the hard way that they have been ripped off. In consequence, they abandon the land and what was well-maintained recreational land falls into disuse. That is the problem, and the thrust of my new clause is that in such circumstances the local authority should have power to order that the land be maintained.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asks whether the trading standards authorities have been involved, or whether they have any powers or controls in this respect. The admirable Kenley greenbelt action group raised the matter with Croydon council, whose reply was that the matter
	"is not covered by any legislation that Trading Standards enforces and claims about the sale of land is specifically exempt from the Trade Descriptions Act 1968."
	The council tried very hard—I take my hat off to it—to take up the case with the managing director of the company, who said that
	"no one can definitively say whether planning permission for the land will ever be granted."
	That is an example of the way in which such people sail close to the wind: the implication is there, but it is not specifically stated that planning permission can be granted. The trading standards office said, regretfully, that it could not intervene, but suggested that we try the Advertising Standards Authority.
	My diligent constituents in the action group took the matter up with the ASA. The advertisement in question is on the internet. The ASA replied:
	"After careful consideration, the Advertising Standards Authority has defined online advertising that is subject to the British Code of Advertising . . . and decided that the Code should apply to online advertisements . . . advertisements in commercial e-mails and sales promotions"
	but not to
	"organisations' claims on their own websites."
	The ASA has decided that a website constitutes "passive advertising". People have to log on to the website and go to the advertisement; the advertisement is not being projected outwards. Although the internet allows people to communicate, they do so in a way that is not relevant as far as the ASA is concerned.
	My ever resourceful constituents decided to take the matter up with the Financial Services Authority.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before he moves on, will my hon. Friend provide some clarification? Is he actually saying that one can put any information one likes on one's own website and it is not subject to any form of control on misdescription from any authority?

Richard Ottaway: I would hate to make a definitive statement, but it seems that any information contained on a website in such a manner is not subject to the authority of the ASA as enshrined in the relevant legislation.
	Reference was made to the Financial Services Authority to establish whether it had control over an investment in land. The FSA replied that investment in land was not within its jurisdiction and that it could not help either.
	It seems that the activity is almost completely unregulated, with very little protection for the consumer. I give credit to the Government for the fact that the Government office for London issued an article 4 notice, which prohibits the fencing of the land in the way that was happening, so all the pegs and so on had to be removed. That was much appreciated.
	I looked at the land the other day. It is beginning to get overgrown with weeds and ragwort. It is falling into disuse and people are being ripped off. As I said to the Minister at the outset, it is hard to legislate for circumstances in which people do not look after their own interests and do not recognise the doctrine of caveat emptor. When the hon. Lady replies to the debate, I shall be interested to hear what the Government's thinking is and whether she can see a way out of the mess.

John Stanley: I am glad to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on an important and increasingly worrying planning issue. Both their new clauses would represent a considerable improvement on present planning legislation, and if either of them wishes to press his new clause to a Division, I shall be pleased to support him.
	The new clauses do not go far enough. My hon. Friends mentioned cases in their constituencies. However, the process to which they referred has been carried far further in my constituency in the locality known as Deer's Leap in the parish of Hever near Edenbridge. I gave a full account of what had happened at Deer's Leap in the Adjournment debate that I held on 5 June. That situation has exposed in a blatantly clear way the inadequacy of both the judicial protection and the planning legislation protection against those engaged in a deliberate, gross, large-scale abuse of development control.
	What happened at Deer's Leap was the division of green belt land into sub-plots. An application was made to the Secretary of State for article 4 directions. They were obtained but proved to be totally useless. A few days after the conclusion of the final land plot sale, what took place was nothing short of an invasion—an invasion of lorries carrying hardcore, fencing and then mobile homes on to the sub-plots.
	The inadequacy of the courts was rapidly exposed. Although Sevenoaks district council went for an injunction, that takes a little time, and the legal system works in such a way that if an injunction is obtained—and one was successfully obtained by Sevenoaks district council—it does not require the land to be returned to the state in which it was before the abuse of development control took place. It merely stops the development at the date on which the injunction is issued. That creates a perverse incentive for those minded to carry out such gross abuses of development control to maximise the development, for which there is no planning permission whatever, until such time as the injunction is obtained.
	Following that, the acute weaknesses of the existing planning system were exposed. As those in occupation put in a retrospective planning application—which, of course, was turned down—the local authority must now deal with the planning appeal. An enforcement notice was issued and appealed against, and the local authority is still waiting for an inquiry into the enforcement and planning appeals. We are nine months on from when the invasion took place and the local authority has already had to spend substantial sums of council tax payers' money to deal with the situation that has been created. As I said in the House on 5 June, if there is such a situation and
	"companies, partnerships or individuals knowingly connive in, are associated with or give effect to major breaches of development control",—[Official Report, 5 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 380.]
	the only proper recourse and deterrent will be the criminal law.
	I have raised the matter with the Under-Secretary and was grateful for her latest letter to me dated 21 November. It was a pity that representatives of Sevenoaks district council were not invited to the meeting that took place in her Department on 31 October because their presence would have been valuable. I am glad that she has told me that she remains open-minded about the possibility of applying the criminal law in such cases. That is the only alternative left to deal with land speculation companies such as Parker Fields and others that follow in their wake by trying to obtain development rights by force.
	I hope that the Under-Secretary will decide that applying the criminal law is necessary. Her letter said that we should focus on prevention rather than the penalties that might be applied. I, too, wish to focus on prevention, so I put it to her that the really worthwhile prevention would be the availability and application of criminal sanctions against such land speculation companies and those who set out blatantly to bust the planning control system. Such people are engaged in nothing short of robbery because achieving development rights by force is robbery and, like all forms of robbery, it must be met with a criminal sanction.

Sydney Chapman: I shall detain the House only briefly. I add my support to new clause 7, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I also listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) spoke to new clause 18, which he tabled.
	The problem is relatively new but very great. It has not been experienced in my constituency, where the metropolis meets the countryside—it is basically suburbia—but it has affected Hertsmere, the constituency next door. The whole purpose of having unspoilt land is for it to remain unspoilt, and it should not remain unspoilt only for the enjoyment of those who live near it because townies as well as countrysiders should be able to access it. If there are deliberate attempts to visually ruin such land, I believe that we have the right to pass a measure to deal with that problem. I enter the caveat that new clause 7 refers to agricultural land, but the problem can apply to land in the countryside that is not necessarily agricultural.
	I emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South. Seventeen years ago, the Select Committee on the Environment held an inquiry into the metropolitan green belt. At that time, the average cost of an acre of land for agricultural use was about £2,500. I apologise, but I cannot metrically adjust the figure at my age, so I hope that the House will make allowances.
	If that land was subject to building or development permission, the price of £2,500 increased to about £250,000 an acre. Today, 17 years later, my guestimate is that on average the agricultural value of the land has decreased from £2,500 to £1,500. However, if that land is the subject of development permission, the value will probably have risen to £5 million an acre. The temptation for developers to take whatever action they can—it is usually long term—to change the land from agricultural to development is great.
	Although this is not related directly to the new clause, one dodge in my constituency was to get a farm holding changed into a pig farm. That did not need any planning application because the change was from agricultural to agricultural. Unfortunately, it was on the windward side of part of my constituency so it was not long before many of my constituents complained about the smell. At the appropriate moment, a developer came in to try to get planning permission. Public opinion was evenly divided. I am told that, on the narrowest of cases, the Secretary of State, or the inspector appointed by him, decided to grant planning permission for a limited residential development. That had not been completed before the developer tried to enlarge his estate, but that was put paid to by the planning inspector turning down the subsequent application.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said in an eloquent intervention, that sort of thing is a gross violation of the development control system. As, by and large, that system is subject not to criminal law but to civil law, I think that there are already exceptional cases where such violations should be made a criminal offence.
	I have read carefully the planning powers that are available to try to deal with these matters, either for the Secretary of State or the local planning authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred to an article 4 direction. That is not sufficient because it is limited and can be applied only in certain narrowly defined situations. There is a possible alternative course that I think I mentioned to the Minister in Committee: to use powers that local planning authorities have in certain circumstances to require an owner of land to tidy it up if it has fallen into gross disrepair or become an unsightly plot. However, I believe that that is insufficient. Under an article 4 direction, fences can be put up to define the imagined or hoped for plots, but not in every case. A site is made unsightly not only by the possibility of caravans, for example, coming on to it, but also by the ability of the potential owner to dig up the turf and put a few bricks on to the land, if not built bricks, and thoroughly despoil the area.
	Even as a person who likes to think that we all fight for individual rights of freedom, I like to think that this is a case where the Government rightly should intervene to change the law to ensure that the practices that we have been talking about do not spread as they have in the recent past.

Matthew Green: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has done the House a service once again by tabling the new clause, but I suspect that the Minister will rightly say again that it is not the approach that will work. We are dealing with what is clearly a severe problem in many parts of the country. Indeed, 14 counties have had the problem, and it is spreading.
	There are essentially three different problems and that is why this approach probably will not work. First, there is the problem that has been touched on of how these pieces of land are sold. That might be a matter for trading standards legislation, but it is not really a planning issue. Then there are two areas that are potentially planning issues. One is the physical subdivision of land—the putting up of fences—and the other is the degradation of the land within the fences. In a sense, they are two slightly different problems and probably cannot be dealt with in the same piece of legislation.
	One problem is that all the routes open to local authorities leave the authority bearing some considerable cost, which in turn is borne by the local council tax payer. Fences can be compulsorily removed using an article 4 direction, but then the local authority has to pay compensation to the people affected, costing the local tax payer a considerable amount. There is the possibility of using a discontinuance order by virtue of section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but again there is a liability to pay compensation to the people concerned. Therefore, there is no easy way of getting the fences removed without it costing the council a considerable amount of money.
	Degradation of the land is in many ways an even more serious problem. The council can issue an untidy land notice under section 215 of the 1990 Act, but that takes a considerable time, involves going to the magistrates court, places quite a cost burden on the local authority and is by no means a quick procedure. In some instances, particularly if the land involved was agricultural, change of land use enforcement notices can be used. Again, that is a slow procedure that involves considerable officer time and cost to the local authority. The only other option is compulsorily to purchase the land, for which there is a provision under section 226 of the 1990 Act if it is in the interests of proper planning in the area. Clearly, compulsory purchase will cost the local taxpayer considerable money. All those costs are forced on the local taxpayer by the profiteering of a handful of companies.
	The solution of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is probably not the sensible way forward. The way to hurt the companies involved is by imposing a financial rather than a criminal sanction, although a financial penalty can be imposed in criminal cases. Where local authorities are being made to bear the costs of any of these methods we need some way to recover the costs from the people who have made the money out of the site, so reducing the attractiveness of taking such an approach.
	One of the easiest routes open to the Minister would be to remove the right to compensation under the article 4 direction. That might reduce some of the costs, but it would not give councils the means to pursue the companies involved for financial recompense for the costs involved.
	The hon. Gentleman has once again done the House a service in tabling the new clause, as has the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) in tabling new clause 18, but this is not a practical way of dealing with the matter. However, it has been forced up the agenda and I hope that the Minister will say that she will continue to look for ways to deal with it. I suspect that the removal of the compensation part of the article 4 direction will be the most immediate route to take.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has, not for the first time during proceedings on this Bill, done the House a service by raising the matter under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) has also done the House a service by drawing attention to problems in his constituency and to the possible route of serving a section 215 notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure proper maintenance of green belt land.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, the real problem is that the planning system cannot react sufficiently quickly. One therefore has to consider solutions allowing local authorities to take quicker action to stop unauthorised development dead in its tracks and to require land to be reinstated. Not only the hon. Members who have spoken tonight, but other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who has made some proposals about this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), have experienced similar problems, and we must find a solution. If the Minister had any doubt that the problem that we are considering is serious, it has surely been well and truly drummed home tonight that action needs to be taken.
	I can propose a number of solutions. Following the excellent debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling on 5 June, I raised the same matter in Westminster Hall having received information from my cousin, Antony Clifton Brown, who sent me copies of his correspondence with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about the activities of Gladwish Land Sales in the parishes of Stisted and Greenstead Green in Essex. Eventually, as in the case raised by my right hon. Friend, the council issued an article 4 direction and obtained confirmation from the Secretary of State.
	That is one method that the Minister could profitably consider, if she were listening to me. As I suggested in Committee, however, the presumption about an article 4 direction needs to be reversed. Currently, such a direction has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State once it has been issued by the local planning authority. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said in his debate that it had taken his local authority six months to obtain the Secretary of State's confirmation. If the presumption were reversed, so that the direction took effect immediately after the local planning authority had issued it, whether or not it would remain in force, but then had to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, the situation would be considerably altered.
	Of course, compensation would be payable in such circumstances if the Secretary of State subsequently ruled that the direction had been applied unreasonably. In the cases raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and other hon. Friends, however, the authorities would have issued directions in reasonable circumstances. The Secretary of State could, if necessary, take several months to confirm the directions, but the activities would have been stopped. That is one useful method that we could consider.
	There is also a second method that we could consider. There is a requirement on change of use involving planning permission when agricultural land is converted into gardens or amenity land. If former agricultural land has been converted into quasi-suburban, derelict or discontinued land, or land of whatever classification is given after it has been subdivided, I can see no reason why planning permission should not have to be sought. A fairly simple change could be made in planning law in that regard. If an applicant applies for retrospective planning permission that is not granted, as would happen in the cases that I have mentioned, and also fails at appeal, the council could have a right to ensure that enforcement action begins immediately. Currently, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has made clear, developers can string a local planning authority along in respect of such difficult developments for months, if not years. Their appeal against the retrospective planning application has to be followed by their appeal against the enforcement notice. Those hearings each take several months, by the end of which a year or so could have passed. There is no reason why a small change in the law could not be made to ensure that if a retrospective planning application is refused on appeal, an enforcement action can start immediately.
	The problem is how to get the land reinstated. If the action is clearly in contravention of planning controls, a mechanism can be found to stop it immediately. Stop notices issued under section 188 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 might be useful, but require compensation. The mechanism adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South—the section 215 notice—is fine, but it requires an appeal to a magistrate. That takes time, and even if the magistrate finds in favour of the local authority, the applicant receives only a level 3 fine. I have not had time to look up what that is—I shall probably be told that it is £3,000, which may be correct. That is inadequate, given that Gladwish Land Sales and others are making profits running into millions from the subdivision of fields.
	I have often suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling that it may become necessary to consider imposing criminal sanctions in certain exceptional cases. I say that with a heavy heart, because I am one of those who believe that criminal sanctions should be applied only in the most serious cases. There would have to be proper due process beforehand, because the threat of an indictable offence is a very serious one. An associated problem is that where criminal sanctions are involved, the burden of proof is increased to that of beyond reasonable doubt. It is not an entirely straightforward matter.
	As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) says, planning authorities can compulsorily acquire such land under a section 226 notice if it is in the interests of proper planning in their area. However, the problem is that the value of the compulsory purchase will be equivalent to the value of the land when the subdivision took place, so the local authority would have to pay the enhanced value, which it would find unacceptable.

John Stanley: My hon. Friend refers to the increase in the burden of proof where criminal law is applied. Does he agree, however, that a gross use of development control is one of the most misuse easily demonstrable cases to prove in court? I have photographs of Deer's Leap as it was—a green belt meadow—and as it is today, covered with hardcore, fencing and mobile homes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is as lucid as always. His comments clearly demonstrate to the Minister the seriousness of such cases.
	The only other mechanism that I have come across for stopping this procedure—we should explore all the mechanisms, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them all—is to issue an injunction under planning law against a person or persons unknown by posting a notice on the land. My local planning authority has done that. We have to deal with two problems—first, stopping the unauthorised development from getting worse; and secondly, reinstating the land to something akin to its former rural agricultural state.
	In dealing with this problem, albeit only tangentially, the appropriate Department must examine the issue of how land sales are promoted on people's websites, although I accept that that might not involve the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. There seems to be a suggestion that the advertising code does not apply in such circumstances. I have here a letter—procured by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South—from one Beverley Gibbs, a complaints handler at the Advertising Standards Authority, dated 28 August 2003. She states quite clearly:
	"The code does not apply to organisations' claims on their own website."
	I intervened earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South to suggest that anyone can put anything on their website, and that seems to be almost a fact. If that is the case, the Government need to address that large legal lacuna.
	I hope that one or two of the methods that I have suggested to the Minister will find favour. This is a serious matter, and I hope that she will be able to give the House some comfort tonight. This issue will not go away, and it will affect more and more Members. If the Minister does nothing about it, we shall find ourselves having more debates of this kind, so I appeal to her to find a solution to the problem.

Yvette Cooper: As many hon. Members have pointed out, we have discussed these issues extensively in Committee. They have also been raised in Adjournment debates, in correspondence and in meetings between Ministers, hon. Members on both sides of the House, officials and local authorities. The Department is therefore giving them considerable thought, and I would like to set out for the House the point that we have reached in that regard.
	I raised concerns on new clause 7 in Committee because the planning system is intended to decide what land should be used for and has nothing to do with the sale of land. Planning permission is not required for the subdivision of land for genuine agricultural reasons, and there is no problem with someone selling off a plot of land if it will remain in use as agricultural land. An issue involving the planning system will arise if the land is to be put to materially different use, in which case planning permission would be required.
	Hon. Members have put forward evidence that the subdivision of agricultural land can be unsightly and can lead to even more harmful longer-term effects. For example, if a developer buys a plot of land and planning permission is not granted for the use that he had in mind, there is a danger that the plot could fall into disrepair or neglect. Other problems can arise when a subdivision of land becomes the trigger for a series of unauthorised developments. That could involve something as simple as unsightly fencing pegs or posts being put up, or something far more substantial involving significant intensive development over a short period of time.
	Permitted development rights enable individual plots to be marked off by fencing pegs or posts without the need for planning permission. Local authorities can remove these rights by means of an article 4 direction, and the guidance sets out the circumstances in which such directions can be used. Many of the other examples to which hon. Members have referred involved cases in which permitted development rights would not apply because there was clearly unauthorised development and planning permission would be required.

John Stanley: Would the hon. Lady agree, however, that even when the Deputy Prime Minister issues an article 4 direction—as happened in relation to Deer's Leap—if the land speculation company, possibly acting in conjunction with those about to carry out the development, chooses to ignore the direction, that direction is effectively torn up?

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly those that are going through the planning system at the moment. However, I recognise that while there are cases in which article 4 directions can be appropriate and effective, and it is simply a question of introducing them in time, there are other cases in which people are simply determined to abuse the planning system and in which different issues arise. I shall come to that in a moment.
	Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have met representatives of local authorities to explore what more could be done in such circumstances, and to address the possible adverse environmental effects of subdivision and the sale of agricultural land. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) is right that there are different but related problems. Land may be sold off on its hope value, and the chances of planning permission for a change of use being granted may be misrepresented. Problems also arise if that land is later neglected because planning permission cannot be granted. There are problems involving the fencing, the pegs or the posts that may be erected under permitted development rights, and problems that occur when much more intensive and extensive development takes place, such as those related to the enforcement system, retrospective planning applications and so on.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In Committee way back in October, I suggested a mechanism to change the presumption on article 4 directions. I should be grateful if the Minister said something about that, because an article 4 direction will remove the permitted development rights, and could act as a brake on the erection of gates and fences.

Yvette Cooper: I shall set out the progress we have made so far and the issues that we are still considering and that we have yet to consider, and I shall come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The first thing we are considering is whether it is possible to introduce a cooling-off period in such circumstances. The seller of the land would have a duty to advise purchasers of that period, and would be required to notify the local planning authority of the proposed sale. The cooling-off period could enable the local planning authority to put in place any restrictions that it thought appropriate, and to ensure that the proposed buyer was aware of those restrictions, including article 4 directions. That would not apply to intensive development, but it might be a way of dealing with cases in which buyers of the land are deceived or have not understood the risk of failing to obtain planning permission. It also might be a way of ensuring that everyone has full information, and could prevent the purchase of subplots on their hope value, which are neglected when it is not possible to get planning permission. That may address one part of the problem.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said, the problem is that these things happen quickly. I suspect that by the time the local planning authority—or whatever Government agency would introduce the cooling-off period—was alert to the fact and was able to act, many of those plots would have been sold off and it would be difficult to reverse that process.

Yvette Cooper: We are trying to deal with a range of different problems. For example, there may be deliberate, rapid and unauthorised development. We are not sure of the extent of that problem, but we have anecdotal evidence that it exists. Those cases are at one extreme, while at the other are the cases in which no unauthorised development takes place, but there are unsightly consequences for the land—the erection of fencing and such like—because it is divided up and sold off in the expectation that planning permission may be granted and that there may be a change of use. Pieces of land may be bought in the hope that planning permission may be obtained, but are then neglected and left to deteriorate and to become unsightly to the local community. Different consequences arise in different cases, and there may be different solutions to different parts of the problem, some of which may be easier to solve than others. The proposal relating to the possible cooling-off period would not deal with all the problems raised by Members, but it might be one way of addressing some of them.
	We also want to give further consideration to the proposal for article 4 directions to be served on site rather than in a newspaper, to bring them into effect more quickly. We are considering amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 for that purpose. We are also considering other changes to the order. We are trying to establish, for example, whether it would be feasible to require prior approval from the local planning authority for the erection of fences on agricultural land. In some of the cases mentioned today, owners or others involved with the land are abiding by the planning system, but action is not speedy enough, or there are not sufficient warnings.
	We are preparing a note to be sent to local authorities throughout England clarifying the issue and the powers that they have to deal with it. There is evidence that some authorities deal with such problems more swiftly and effectively than others.
	The major difficulties arise in the event of unauthorised development. They may be triggered by the subdivision of land, but they may also occur when there is rapid, unauthorised development. Members have expressed doubts about the speed and effectiveness of the planning system in dealing with such development after it has taken place, and about the effectiveness of enforcement. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about the presumption relating to article 4, and the hon. Member for Ludlow referred to compensation.
	A series of wider questions could be raised about the nature and speed of the enforcement system, and about the various powers involved. Some of those may be dealt with when we discuss later amendments. Much more difficult issues must be grappled with in this context. We are reviewing the enforcement system, and following what was said in Committee we have asked officials to prioritise matters relating to retrospective planning applications. We want to deal with that as quickly as possible, but I warn Members that these are particularly difficult problems.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The enforcement review was mentioned in Committee in October. Presumably it had been operating for some time by then. Can the Minister tell us when it began, when it is likely to end, and when we can expect some action from the Government?

Yvette Cooper: I cannot give the exact timetable, but originally the review was not expected to feed into the Bill's time. We have consulted extensively on the wide range of issues involved, and many representations have been made. We have asked officials to consider specific enforcement issues raised in Committee, and have asked for them to be made a priority in discussion of the review as a whole. They are complicated, however, and cannot be easily resolved. We are having to work out how the enforcement regime will cope when people are determined to abuse the system, and also how to ensure fair and proportionate consideration of other cases. For instance, some people may not realise that they must apply for planning permission. So there is a wide range of issues that needs to be considered further, and as I said, we are keen to prioritise the questions that Members raised in Committee.
	New clause 18 aims to enable local planning authorities to purchase land compulsorily in a green belt where a section 215 notice requiring the remedying of land adversely affecting local amenity has not been complied with. Local authorities already have compulsory purchase powers to deal with derelict land, and to provide open space or community facilities in the public interest. The Secretary of State would normally expect any statutory procedures to remedy derelict or unsightly land, such as section 215 notices, to have been taken as far as possible before the local authority resorts to compulsory purchase. However, I recognise the principles behind the new clause, and as I said, we are keen to consider them further.
	We are taking very seriously the points raised by Members on both sides of the House. I have set out the various ways in which we are trying to consider these issues further, in order to see what progress can be made. We will continue to do so, and to keep Members informed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If my reading of section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is correct, it is concerned not with compulsory purchase, but with the serving of notices by the local authority on land adversely affecting amenity of neighbourhood. It also provides for a 28-day period after which such a notice must take effect. Section 216 states:
	"If any owner or occupier of the land on whom the notice was served fails to take steps required by the notice within the period specified . . . he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
	That has nothing to do with compulsory purchase. Does the Minister think that new clause 18 has any merit?

Yvette Cooper: Our concern is that new clause 18 would not necessarily add anything to local authorities' powers to deal with the problem of land in the green belt not being properly maintained. The new clause attempts to deal, for example, with development that takes place under permitted development rights, and with land that has been largely neglected when, contrary to people's expectations, the issue of planning permission has not been addressed. But, in fact, the new clause would not satisfactorily address the real problem that we have been discussing. Local authorities already have powers to deal with such land.
	There is a wider range of issues that we need to consider, but at this stage it would not be right to support the two new clauses, given that considerable work is already under way to address the problems to which they refer.

Andrew Turner: It would be fair to begin by thanking the Minister—I hope that I do her no damage in doing so—for her powerful response to the two new clauses. She has demonstrated that her Department is taking the matter seriously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to what is by far the worst example of which I have heard in dealing with such matters. There are a couple of issues that still concern me, one of which is that, whether an enforcement notice, an article 4 direction or—as in most cases—an injunction or compulsory purchase order is being served, it is necessary to know the owner of the land. As we discussed in Committee, where land has been divided into penny packets, the process by which ownership is discovered is both difficult and expensive.
	I particularly commend to the Minister three measures, two of which were advanced by one of my colleagues. The first is to reverse the presumption on an article 4 direction, and the second is to make it possible to serve an injunction against a person or persons unknown in relation to land. I also wonder whether ignoring an article 4 direction might be made a criminal offence. That would certainly seem possible.
	I warmly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for their contributions.
	We need to address the high costs that fall on local authorities—meaning, of course, local people—which have to be recovered somehow. I hope that the Minister will look at that matter in the enforcement review. She has demonstrated that a range of different possible solutions are being considered, and I hope that one, or perhaps more, will be found to be appropriate before the Bill completes its passage through the House.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Planning: Retrospective Applications

'. In section 73A (planning permission for development already carried out) of the principal Act after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) An application for planning permission made to a local planning authority under subsection (1) shall be assigned as a retrospective application.
	(2B) In considering a retrospective application the local planning authority shall—
	(a) consider the application as if work on it had not begun;
	(b) have no regard to any financial loss involved to the developers or others should the application not be approved.
	(2C) If planning permission is not granted the local planning authority may require that the site be restored so far as practicable to the state that it was in before development commenced.
	(2D) In determining any appeal from a refusal to grant planning permission in respect of a retrospective application, the Secretary of State shall be bound by subsections (2A) and (2B) above.".'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 33, in page 27, line 42 [Clause 43], at end insert—
	'(c) The applicant shall have a right of appeal to an Independent Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State when an application is not determined under (a) or (b) above.'.
	No. 81, in page 36, line 14 [Clause 47], after 'years', insert
	'beginning on the later of—
	(i) the date on which the permission is granted, and
	(ii) the date on which the last of all associated consents, permissions or clearances in relation to the development has been granted or given by any government or statutory body where application for such consent, permission or clearance was made as soon as reasonably practicable.'.
	No. 82, in page 37, line 13 [Clause 47], after 'three years', insert
	'beginning on the later of—
	(i) the date on which the consent is granted, and
	(ii) the date on which the last of all associated consents, permissions or clearances in relation to the works to which the listed building consent relates has been granted or given by any government or statutory body where application for such consent, permission or clearance was made as soon as reasonably practicable.'.

Andrew Turner: Since I tabled the new clause—indeed, in the past two or three minutes—information has come to light from the Minister about the work that she is doing in the enforcement review. I am pleased to hear that. In a letter that I received on Friday, the Minister wrote that she was looking to make an announcement about the outcome of the enforcement review in the new year. I am grateful for that.
	I tabled the new clause because many would agree that a retrospective application appears to be an easy way of obtaining planning permission, and it is a way that people greatly resent.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right, but the situation is worsened by the fact that local authorities are not always confident about enforcement. When they do press to enforce, they do not feel that they have the necessary backing or that the law is sufficiently behind them. That has led to a culture in which they are reticent about enforcement. It is partly a question of time and resources, but it is also about that culture and that lack of confidence.

Andrew Turner: I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is a matter that disturbs residents enormously, even when they see something small. One example from my personal history was when someone built a shark in the roof of their house, something that was greatly resented by my neighbours in my street, which happened to be the street in which the house with the shark was located. It took something like three years for the proper enforcement action to be taken, for a planning application to be procured and so on. I believe that the shark remains in the roof because Ministers eventually upheld the appeal against enforcement action.

Richard Younger-Ross: I rather liked the shark. I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I thought it was quite witty. However, I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). In my constituency—100 yards from where I live—a retrospective application was made to raise a roof 600 mm higher than was in the original application. I persuaded the local authority to turn it down and to make the applicant appeal. They did, and guess what? The Minister supported the eyesore, which was then constructed. It is difficult for politicians to tell an authority to do something, because Ministers and the Government might not support it.

Andrew Turner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had as much egg on his face as he usually appears to have on his tie as a result of being overruled by the Minister. I sympathise. When one has gone to some considerable lengths to persuade a local authority to behave in a particular way, one easily can be undermined. I tabled the new clause because, on 23 October, in Committee, the Minister said that she had hoped to respond to the enforcement review before the end of the year.
	If the review has slipped for the good reasons that she mentioned earlier—to give officials the opportunity to consider retrospection and to ensure that the review can feed into the Bill—I forgive her absolutely for not meeting that self-imposed deadline. However, it is of considerable concern to residents that applications made retrospectively should not be seen as an easy way of getting planning permission.
	I gave some examples in Committee. I shall not go through those again; I am sure that those hon. Members who have read the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings will have seen those examples, and others may not be interested in them.

John Hayes: rose—

Andrew Turner: I see that my hon. Friend is seeking to intervene.

John Hayes: I just did not want my hon. Friend to feel that he should not regale the House with examples. It is important that he emphasise his point with specifics. I could certainly give many examples from my constituency. We need to bring the issue into sharp focus.

Andrew Turner: Let me give the example in Yarmouth. I referred in a previous debate to the River Yar: that was, of course, the East Yar. Yarmouth is at the mouth of the West Yar. There are only three main rivers in my constituency, and two of them are called Yar.
	The example in Yarmouth was of a house being built on a site that had planning permission—indeed, it was supposedly being built on the footprint of an earlier bungalow. Because the applicants furnished the committee with somewhat misleading drawings, it believed that the house was going to be of a certain height and that the ridge height would be the same as that of the adjoining houses. Eventually it was discovered that the ridge height was greater than that of the adjoining houses, and notwithstanding the fact that the height was much more generous than the committee would have liked to pass, the applicant went on to build something considerably higher than that. I hope that my local authority will take enforcement action in the same way as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) has suggested to his local authority. I certainly hope that I will not end up with a yellow face or a yellow tie.

Richard Younger-Ross: My tie is blue.

Andrew Turner: I know that the hon. Gentleman's tie is blue today, and I congratulate him on his taste—today.
	The need is for certainty in the planning system, and I believe that proper implementation of the decisions of the enforcement review will add to certainty. I commend the new clause to the House.

Sydney Chapman: I support my hon. Friend on new clause 8. When he talked about the shark in the roof, I wondered whether it was a contender for the Turner prize. If it was, I suggest that the penalty ought to be £20,000, an exact match for the prize itself.
	I want to draw one point to the Minister's attention. My hon. Friend referred to a place by the River Yar. In that case, the person got planning permission but did not build according to the plans. I note that my hon. Friend tabled a new clause 6, which was not selected—I do not quarrel with that at all. However, it seems to me that when we are dealing with enforcement matters, we should consider not only those edifices that appear without any planning permission but buildings for which permission has been given but which are not built in accordance with the plans, usually because the wrong measurements have been given on the plans accompanying the application. In my view, that is an equally serious situation.

John Hayes: I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is not an occasional aberration. There are areas—I shall not say which exactly—where that is continually an issue. Developers will deliberately and systematically use that approach to get what they want, and the problem needs to be dealt with on that basis.

Sydney Chapman: I take that point absolutely. The sad thing, from my point of view as a professional person, is that if the plans are prepared by a professional person, that professional person has some responsibility in the matter.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has the same experience as me, but we have shared a profession, as I have worked in architectural industries for most of my life. In one case in the London borough of Merton, a client deliberately and knowingly made an extension far larger than the plans that I had submitted. When I spoke to the local authority to point that out, it was not interested, although it was a deliberate breach of the planning consent given.

Sydney Chapman: That is a fair point, and I eagerly support the hon. Gentleman's view that it is not necessarily the professional who has made a mistake but the client not carrying out the plans drawn up by the professional. Sadly, there have also been cases in which the measurements on the plan have been inaccurate. We discussed that at length in Committee, so I need not continue the discussion now. It is a serious and important matter, however, and it is not just about building without any planning permission but building, getting permission, and not carrying out the building in accordance with the permission given.

Richard Younger-Ross: I want to speak in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) in relation to buildings that are built without consent. In Committee, he questioned whether the process of building without consent should be considered illegal. He asked whether anybody had read what he had said in Committee, and I happen to have it to hand. He said:
	"I have come under some pressure—I would not be surprised if other hon. Members have, too—to make development without permission against the law".
	Yes, many of us have come under pressure when a building has gone up to say, "How can they be allowed to do that? How can they live in that building for X years, or use it to trade, without consent? We know that they are abusing the system." However, he went on to say:
	"We have to adjust the balance of perception in the public mind, without going so far as to make it illegal to develop without permission."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 October 2003; c. 327–28.]
	The balance of that is probably just about right. As he, and, I am sure, other Members are aware, however, there are cases in which doing work without a planning application is illegal and a criminal act—demolition of a listed building without consent is a criminal act. Therefore, if we cannot succeed in persuading people to stop constructing without consent, there would be recourse to that at a later date, which would not be inappropriate. We ought to put that in reserve for consideration later if such activity cannot be halted.
	In Committee, however, the Minister rejected what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was trying to say. She said:
	"It also would be contrary to the principles of administrative law, which require a decision maker to have regard to all relevant matters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 October 2003; c. 330.]
	I would not try to argue legal points—my background is in architecture, not law—[Interruption.] I am unlike the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in that. I would, however, question the use of the word "relevant" in that case. If a person knowingly constructs a building without consent, by and large they have done so knowing that they required consent. They have knowingly done something that they know that they should not have done. One does not accidentally happen to build a building or an extension to one's house. One does it by deliberate forethought. By and large, one will ask someone qualified, or not qualified, to draw up some plans for a builder to construct it. It would be rare for someone to manage to build something with no plans whatever, although I appreciate that there are some areas in which that may occasionally happen. Most cases, however, are not like that.
	There was a case in the London borough of Wandsworth in which a person tried to build an entire office block without consent, and wondered why the local authority objected. In that case, the local authority continued to object, turned it down, and was eventually supported by the inspector. That building was four houses long and four storeys high. It was hardly a standard small extension that could be ignored. However, many other cases with different circumstances also need to be addressed.
	If someone has deliberately and methodically built something, why should that be taken into consideration in the planning application? Why should that be relevant to the decision? I know, as will other hon. Members who have been in the profession, that once a building has been constructed, consent usually follows. The owner claims that he has no money to knock it down, or has used all his savings to construct it. However, those are not relevant matters. The relevant matters are the planning issues. An extension or building should be judged simply on its merits and on whether it complies with planning legislation, the local authority's plan for the area and the context of its environment—and not on whether the owner can afford to knock it down. I support the new clause for that reason.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am glad to address this group of amendments, which includes several that I have tabled. I shall address those, as well as new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. He raised a similar issue in Committee and the general tenor of the debate supported what he was trying to achieve. We all know from our constituency postbags that retrospective planning applications are more likely to be granted than not. If someone has failed to comply fully with the provisions of a planning application, or fails to apply for planning consent at all, and builds a property, some strong sanction should be applied to require retrospective planning permission to be obtained. That retrospective application should be treated on exactly the same basis as one made before the construction of the property. That is what new clause 8 seeks to achieve.
	Most planning authorities are too understaffed to carry out enforcement properly. That is a real problem for many local planning authorities and will worsen once the Bill, with all its complexities, comes into operation. It is all very well for my hon. Friends to say that the professional who devises the scheme—the architect or surveyor—should bear some professional responsibility if a development is not carried out entirely in accordance with the plans, but in many cases the professional's involvement in a scheme ends with drawing up the plans and he has no responsibility for supervising the development thereafter. The client has the responsibility to ensure that the development is carried out properly.
	My other concern is that after four years nothing can be done, because a certificate of lawful use can be obtained. In a large, complex rural area, such as my constituency, which is more than 1,000 square miles, it is almost inevitable that some unlawful developments will take place and the planning authority will not find out about them until after the four-year period is up. That is a real problem.
	The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that the decision maker must take into account all material points. Of course he must do so, but the balance should lie in favour of planning law being applied. One of the worst planning cases that I have had to deal with was within a couple of months of my being elected, when my constituency was known as Cirencester and Tewkesbury. A builder, who should have known better, had built a house out of pre-cast concrete blocks, but the planning application specified that it should be built of Cotswold stone. The local planning authority required him to demolish the house. I fully supported the local planning authority and he had to take down the whole outer skin of the building. The house has now been built in Cotswold stone and is thoroughly in keeping with its surroundings.
	Planning law must be enforced, and we need to consider carefully how we deal with enforcement and retrospective planning applications. If a retrospective planning application is taken to appeal and the appeal fails, enforcement action should be immediate; it should not be subject to a separate hearing and possible further appeals, as the whole process could cost the local planning authority a large amount of money—as has been pointed out—and could take a large amount of time.
	My amendments take us back to the original Bill at long last, and to some of the matters that were discussed only in scant detail in Committee. Amendment No. 33 would amend clause 43, under which local authorities are allowed to decline to determine similar applications—the so-called twin-tracking procedure. Where the conditions under subsections (1) (a) and (b) are satisfied, my amendment provides that there should be an appeal to an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.
	Under article 6 of the European convention on human rights, a citizen under the jurisdiction of the convention has a fundamental right of appeal to an independent hearing. It seems to me that if someone makes two similar appeals, or even two appeals that have only marginal differences, and the local authority decides that it does not want to determine one of the appeals, that is to deny that person their human rights. Even if that were not so, let us debate whether the clause is sensible.
	Under current planning procedures, if a person makes an application and the local authority does not determine it within the eight weeks allowed, the person can put in a second, similar application that they take to appeal. The idea is that the person should continue to negotiate with the planning authority, which should either give good reasons for its definite determination to turn down the application—as even if it went to appeal it would not succeed—or grant the application. If we abolish that sensible system, I predict that developers will take many more cases to appeal because the local planning authority has not made a determination within the eight-week deadline.
	The Government are cutting off their nose to spite their face; they will be landing themselves with many more appeals as a result of the provisions. Of course, they may reply that they will make the planning system work so well that 90 per cent. of planning applications will be determined within the eight-week period. I do not believe that that will happen—or not for some considerable time, given the complexity of the Bill. The Government ought to think again. I am certain that if they do not do so while the Bill is in this place, Members of another place will need to consider the clause very carefully indeed.
	Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 deal with clause 47, which covers the duration of consents. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already includes powers for local planning authorities to grant planning permissions with a three-year consent, which can be varied to five years. There is also a further category that I cannot remember. Clause 47 cuts the duration of consents from five years to three years, as, according to the Government, significant large sites, often in city centres, remain undeveloped for far too long. Nobody condones that, but the problem is that it can often take three years or more just to obtain compulsory purchase of such large, complicated sites, let alone anything else.
	My amendments are supported by the British Property Federation, whose comments make a great deal of sense. The amendments state that if the Government cut down the duration of all consents the three-year period should run from the date on which all statutory consents, permissions or clearances in relation to the development was granted
	"or given by any government or statutory body where application for such consent, permission or clearance was made as soon as reasonably practicable".

Richard Younger-Ross: My understanding is that local authorities may, especially in respect of complex developments that require compulsory purchase orders, allow consents to run to five years or longer. Would not strong guidance—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman listening? Would not strong Government guidance be better than the provisions of his amendment?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the discourtesy of talking to the Minister. I chided the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for doing exactly the same thing. The Minister for Housing and Planning was giving me some guidance—and very useful it was too. Bearing in mind his strictures, and in view of the fact that I have dealt with the matter expeditiously, no doubt the Minister replying will accede to my amendments Nos. 81 and 82.

Yvette Cooper: I shall deal first with the issues around retrospective planning applications. As I said in Committee, we are keen to look further at those issues, especially in the context of the enforcement review. We have asked officials to prioritise consideration of the points made by hon. Members in Committee. We have to recognise that a wide range of cases is involved: there are cases in which someone simply did not realise that they needed planning permission, for example, to extend a wall; there are cases in which someone is fully aware and is deliberately abusing the system; there are cases in which there is simply a difference of view. Hon. Members mentioned the shark, which I really liked, having passed it on a bus on many occasions.
	If someone has not applied for planning permission, a wide range of enforcement actions can be taken, including enforcement notices, stop notices, and injunctions. In many cases, those powers are sufficient and the retrospective application is dealt with perfectly properly, with the planning application granted or not granted, as the case may be. Cases were cited in Committee and in the House today in which—admittedly after some months have passed and local people have become concerned about the time the case has taken—the application has been turned down and the builders obliged to pull down the building. Hon. Members have spoken about cases that have caused concern, but the rate of success of retrospective planning applications is slightly lower than that of applications submitted in advance.
	We recognise that we have to consider the matter further, but we should also recognise that retrospective planning applications are an important part of the planning system. Those who responded to the planning enforcement review were strongly of the view that the retrospective planning system should be continued, although, as I said, there are issues of enforcement that have to be examined.
	I set out my concerns about new clause 8 in Committee. It should be possible to take account of all material considerations, but of course I recognise that considerations such as financial loss to the developer should carry different weight in, for example, a case in which the developer knew exactly what they were getting into. However, it would be going too far to say that it should never be possible to take into account personal or material considerations.
	Clause 43 enables a local planning authority to decline to determine an application if a similar application has been refused within the previous two years, or if a similar application is still under consideration. We acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed; nevertheless, the local planning authority has discretion to decline to determine a further application. We shall issue guidance to stress that we expect local planning authorities to use the power only if they think that the applicant intends to exert unfair pressure; otherwise, if a genuine attempt is being made to take account of objections, the application should be determined. Equally, the Bill provides flexibility to extend the time periods applicable to complex regenerations, so that developers have sufficient time to commence work. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to withdraw the motion.

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 together.
	Ordered,

Culture, Media And Sport

That Miss Julie Kirkbride be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Mr. Charles Hendry be added.

Education And Skills

That Mr. Mark Simmonds be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr. Nick Gibb be added.

Information

That Mr. Michael Jack be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Robert Key be added.

International Development

That Mr. Robert Walter be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Andrew Robathan be added.

Trade And Industry

That Mr. Henry Bellingham be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Nigel Evans be added.

Treasury

That Mr. Andrew Tyrie be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Robert Walter be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Local Government

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Graham Allen: The use of the council tax as a top-up fee for local government funding has run its course. Even ignoring the democratic arguments, there is now an overwhelming case for a fundamental reform of the local and national Government relationship. This is my contribution to the big conversation, which is needed on the topic ahead of the third term.
	I welcome the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), to the Front Bench. This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of having an Adjournment debate with him. We go back some time. I remember when we were twinned before the 1997 general election. I always knew that my hon. Friend had a great future ahead of him, and he is proving that as he makes a great impact in his ministerial position.
	The Government are to be commended for their open-mindedness in looking at local income tax and other forms of local government funding. While important in itself, it will be even more significant as the trigger for the next serious step to democratic reform in the United Kingdom. Most western democracies have guaranteed local government independence, backed up by a constitutional guarantee. For that to work in the UK would require not only powers, but financial autonomy, to be devolved to local government.
	The appalling turnouts for modern elections underline the fact that it is time either to create genuine democratic local government or to stop the pretence and wind it up. In the debate on local income tax we should stake a claim for nothing less than constitutionally independent local government for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a concept that would sustain local government and its financing long into the future and end the annual begging-bowl round that so humiliates both the central Government giver and the local government receiver.
	Given the reduction of local government over recent decades to little more than an agent of central Government, this proposal would amount to the largest denationalisation ever undertaken in the UK, and the restoration to the public of their ownership of their own local government. The centralisers in British politics have had their day. Over the past 40 years, whatever success they have had nationally, they have delivered neither economic nor social progress at the local level. We see short-term finance, interference, distortion of local priorities, people spending much of their time bidding or working to protect the future of their own jobs, and a plethora of schemes and bodies to circumvent local democratic decision making, barely understood by anyone but a new cadre of local professionals.
	Virtually every nation and every business has concluded that the current economic complexities are way beyond the capacities of a command economy. They speak, and deliver on, the language of decentralisation, devolution, local budget holding, participation, and team working. Yet the way we in the UK govern ourselves seems to be stuck, Brezhnev-like, in command politics. That is seen at its starkest and its most wasteful in central control of local government—a concept both alien and hilarious to most other western democracies.
	Free local democracy will provide more diversity and independence in our political system, which will lead to more creativity, sensitivity and innovation throughout our society and economy. Merely to remove some of the worst excesses of centralism, such as ending the capping of local spending, democratising quangos and releasing capital receipts, welcome as those steps are, is not enough. We need to put local independence beyond the reach of central Government and to admit that the man in Whitehall does not know best, even if, in my case, he is a Labour man.
	Petty interference from the centre must be denied any legal or financial basis and that should be achieved in two ways. First, local authorities must be created in law as independent sovereign entities to guarantee their independence. They would then be able to undertake, as of right, all the duties for which they were elected locally and that are recognised as being local under subsidiarity—a concept that will soon have legal force in the European constitution. They would include duties that are not prohibited by law, which would turn the present injunction saying that authorities are not allowed to do things that are not expressly allowed by law on its head. Local government, like any other public body, would have to perform its duties under a legitimate inspection regime, in the context of the European convention on human rights and, potentially, under a more comprehensive and up-to-date British Bill of Rights. It could, therefore, be held to account by any citizen if it were arbitrarily to breach such rights.
	Additionally, the pull of centralism is so great that even a Government who had created independent local government might succumb to the temptation to meddle unless we were to ensure that such local rights were put constitutionally out of bounds. That could be achieved initially by this place passing a local government independence Bill that could be protected from easy repeal by including an amendment to the Parliament Act 1911 to allow a second Chamber to veto legislation threatening the rights of local government. In the longer term, such a fundamental bedrock of our democracy must be guaranteed by clauses in a written constitution for the United Kingdom.
	Secondly, although we may return the ownership of local government to local people, we must also restore control to them. Political independence for councils would mean nothing without financial independence. The bulk of all local authority spending—more than half—is provided by central Government and only a fraction—one eighth—is raised locally by council tax. Such dependency must end. Central Government must be removed from the financial equation locally and a radical new settlement on taxation must be implemented to achieve that.
	Income tax is first collected from local taxpayers by the Inland Revenue and distributed back to the localities by central Government, but that essentially technical system of distribution has become politicised and arbitrary due to ministerial manipulation and the desire to impose central priorities. In future, I propose that the Inland Revenue should collect the same amount of income tax revenue, thus leaving the taxpayer completely financially unaffected. However, the precise amount that currently goes to local government would be ring-fenced and given to it directly rather than via the centre.
	Central Government spending on local services in England and Wales is £54.6 billion and the income tax take for England and Wales is £109 billion. In effect, about 50 per cent. of the income tax take would become a local element and 50 per cent. would go to the Chancellor. That could be done via an independent commission that would be legally separate and dislocated from Whitehall. It would receive local government's slice of income tax directly from the Inland Revenue and be charged with distributing money to councils on the same basis as that currently used by the Government Department with responsibility for local government. There is no reason why most of the commission's members could not be elected councillors from all parties. Local government's national bodies have shown themselves to be mature and confident in their cross-party work and when co-operating among themselves, so there is no reason why such a commission could not perform that task. The amount of income tax raised for national and local expenditure would be clearly identified on everybody's payslip as national and local income tax to aid accountability. Although central Government would be legally excluded from tampering with the overwhelming bulk of local authorities' income, they could perform the function for which they are best suited by being free to assist councils with time-limited funding for specific problems, which is already done by the federal Government of the United States and the Governments of many—indeed, most—European states.
	Local councils, assured that the funding of most of their expenditure was secure, could then be free to raise the remaining part of their income from a menu of tax-raising revenue powers, ranging from property taxes to sales taxes. Decisions on local taxes and rates could be taken by local representatives, perhaps even endorsed in local referendums. My guess is that local authorities would mostly rely on their local income tax—£54.6 billion—a returned business rate of £16.3 billion and a property tax of £17.7 billion to meet their total current expenditure of £88.5 billion. However, this would be a matter entirely for them to decide. In a mature democracy local authorities would be confident and competent enough to raise and spend what they decide is appropriate, always needing to balance service delivery with revenue raising and being aware of the electoral consequences of no taxation without explanation.
	Citizens, knowing what they pay and why they pay it and holding their own local representatives to account, would constitute a firmer discipline and a stronger bulwark against central interference than any statute that could be passed by this place. Local authorities already have a record of financial expertise and economic management that bears comparison with central Government, who so often wish to lecture them whatever political party that Government happen to represent.
	As a constitutional safeguard, local authorities would be obliged to operate a balanced budget provision, a self-discipline operated by most American state governments. Annual income would have to match annual spending. Local borrowing, provided that its costs were met from annual income, need not be controlled by Whitehall or appear in the old public sector borrowing requirement, which is now called the public sector net cash requirement.
	Throwing away the crutch of central Government will be a frightening as well as exciting challenge. There will be nobody else to blame any more. However, devoted public service has always characterised local councillors of all parties, and they will respond to their liberty. Let local people decide on their spending, their services, their electoral system or the use of direct democracy. A thousand flowers are waiting to bloom locally, but not all of them to the liking of whichever political party is in control at the centre. We must be mature enough to accept that, alongside one council's initiative to create jobs or vocational training in schools, for example, another council may wish to reinstate grammar schools. Such diversity should be not centrally repressed but fought out nationally and locally in the melting pot of campaigns, the contest of ideas and the votes around local choices.
	I have faith that my party's ideas would pass such tests, not least because they would deliver a tremendous revitalisation to our all-too-often moribund local politics. Returning real decision-making powers to local areas would give a much-needed stimulus to local political parties. Many individuals who have opted out of local politics would again be drawn back into public service. Once again, it would really matter who got elected locally and how well they were politically prepared and technically trained to handle the onerous duties and responsibilities of independent local government.
	We would recreate that invaluable network of citizen politicians of all parties, in touch with their communities, close to their constituents, empowered and empowering their local areas. We all know that the current agency relationship between the centre and the localities cannot be sustained. Independence for local government and independence for people locally is an idea that could revitalise not only our politics but our local civic community. Now is the time for some bold leadership to release and return power back to where it belongs—our local communities.

Phil Hope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this evening's debate and thank him for his kind remarks at the beginning. He managed cleverly to refer to President Brezhnev, and Chairman Mao indirectly, in the same contribution, even though they had opposing philosophies—although the citizens of their two countries may not feel that way.
	This is a good time to discuss this important subject, which the Government take seriously, and with which I am closely involved, not least as a member of the steering group that is looking at the balance of funding. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's views and suggestions on how the local government system should operate, and it may help the House if I recap on the background to the many issues that he raised.
	My hon. Friend is concerned with local government's constitutional standing, electoral turnout, the need for political and financial independence and the case for a local income tax. Any of those might be considered a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate in its own right, and he is to be congratulated on bringing so many important issues together in one short debate.
	I should like to start with localism, which is at the core of my hon. Friend's proposals. That is a term that is used increasingly commonly in many different contexts, and rightly so: it is a central theme in the Government's thinking, and underpinned much of what we said in our White Paper and the new financial freedoms in the Local Government Act 2003.
	What does localism mean? Like many well used phrases, it is, I suspect, open to a range of different interpretations. Presumably, it is the opposite of centralism and command politics, the sins that my hon. Friend described earlier. To do him credit, he proposed a truly radical meaning that would entirely break with the history of local government and the current constitution of this country. His localism would require constitutionally independent local government, backed by a new inspection regime, a new British Bill of Rights, a local income tax, and a menu of other tax-raising powers. I hope that I have not understated the radical nature of his approach.
	The Government have their own powerful vision here—one in which strengthened and efficient councils are free to deliver what their voters demand. But we also need to have the power to intervene where they are clearly not doing so. Our vision recognises the expectations of the public. When asked their opinion, many of the public are often in favour of devolution in principle. It seems common sense that councils should be left alone to get on with things in the way that my hon. Friend described, but others seem to trust their local councils less than they do Parliament and Whitehall, and that was shown, for example, by our focus group research on public attitudes to the balance of funding. If the public are asked different questions, they tend to be hostile to what the press like to call the postcode lottery. If we are to advocate the localist cause, we have to be prepared to build public understanding that devolution of decision making involves greater diversity of provision.
	The public can also be slightly less devolutionist when things go wrong. They are quick to point the finger at central Government and ask us to step in. For example, in response to a highly publicised social services case, or evidence of educational under achievement, the tendency is to insist that the Government must do something to remedy the problem. There are expectations that the Government should ensure certain minimum standards, and that means that there must be a limit to local discretion. Society simply will not accept standards of provision falling below certain norms in any area, and, frankly, neither will we.
	Now we hear the term new localism or, in different contexts, civil renewal, suggesting that we should perhaps look at a radically new concept of devolution to the town hall and beyond. I should be clear that I support giving people a strong say in their localities in respect of services, and in other issues, such as liveability, that affect their everyday lives. That is about getting better services because they can better reflect local needs and priorities, and about getting people involved. I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments in his remarks towards the end of his speech, because effective local leadership is vital to achieving that. Thriving communities and strong democratic leadership go hand in hand. He and I both know from our constituency experience that neighbourhoods have complex interrelated problems, services are delivered by multiple agencies and there are limits to the capacity of any community to address all issues.
	That is why we see a vital role for the council as community leader and facilitator, and we have started to give councils the ability to play that role. In 2000, we gave councils a power to promote the well-being of their areas, allowing them to respond to a wide range of local issues. This year, the Local Government Act 2003 gave local authorities more freedoms that will help them to respond to local priorities and needs. Financial freedoms and the freedom to respond to businesses and communities are crucial to making credible an agenda of responsiveness. In a different context, which we have been debating today, we are ensuring that the planning system—one of the issues about which local people get most concerned—is more responsive to the community.
	Those issues are the context for the new localism, but we recognise that it does not stop at the town hall. There are already models of empowering communities, such as neighbourhood management schemes, which I am sure my hon. Friend has in his area, and quality parishes. We are looking at those options and others across services and Departments. He will have seen that, in the big conversation, of which his contribution is a part, we have asked for views on whether we should give neighbourhoods more direct power over public spaces and community safety, with the power to raise small sums of money. We want a real debate on those issues, and his contribution has been an important part of that.
	I should add a word on the European context, to which my hon. Friend also referred. In their approach to the Convention on the Future of Europe and now towards the intergovernmental conference in drawing up a constitutional treaty for the European Union, the UK Government have throughout been a leading advocate both of ensuring that subsidiarity is properly enforced and of strengthening the role of national Parliaments in Europe. We also welcomed the recognition that the Convention gave to the role of regional and local government. We are continuing to support those proposals in the IGC.
	I should like now to move on to the finance issues that my hon. Friend raised. First, I refer him to the recent provisional grant settlement for local authorities. I know that that does not quite go to the philosophical root of his arguments, but I should like to preface my later remarks with some comments on the reality of what is happening now. As he will know, the Government have increased the grant to local government by some 29 per cent. in real terms since 1997, taking account of the provisional settlement for 2004–05. That settlement is the seventh successive settlement to give an above-inflation increase to councils—in this case no less than 6.5 per cent.
	More money is going into local government, but my hon. Friend asks for more financial freedoms for local government. We have already moved in that direction, as can be seen in our commitment to reverse the trend on the ring-fencing of grants to local authorities. I am pleased to say that, in the recent grant settlement, we reduced the ring-fenced grant from 13.3 to 11.1 per cent. of the total grant.
	The Local Government Act 2003 is also about giving councils more independence and flexibility, including financially, and paves the way for even greater freedoms for councils to improve their services. It includes powers to trade, charge for discretionary services and retain income from some fines and penalties, and gives incentives for local government to work with local businesses through the business improvement districts and growth incentives schemes. It also provides for authorities, rather than the Government, to decide how much they need to borrow.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the balanced budget duty. The duty to set a balanced revenue budget has long been a fundamental part of the local government financial framework. From next April, the 2003 Act will strengthen current rules even further.
	I am also pleased that my hon. Friend favours removing central control from local borrowing. As he knows, that is exactly what will happen next April, when the new prudential capital finance system comes into force. Again, the framework has been provided in the Local Government Act 2003. For the first time, local authorities will be free to borrow to fund capital expenditure without Government consent, provided that they can afford to service the debt without extra Government support.
	Let me move on to my hon. Friend's specific suggestions on what taxes local government should be able to raise and to the broader-brushed canvas that he described. In brief, I understand that he is proposing a local income tax, relocalisation of the business rates and other local revenue sources such as a sales tax. His voice is certainly not the first to make those suggestions. All of them are among the areas for further consideration raised by respondents to the consultation on our balance of funding review, which has invited expert evidence on all those issues in the next few months.
	It is possible that, despite recent discussions of council tax rises, some hon. Members are not familiar with the balance of funding review, although I am sure that my hon. Friend is. The Government proposed in their 2001 White Paper to set up a high-level working group to address an issue repeatedly raised by local authorities and the Local Government Association. They argued that the fact that local authorities raised only 25 per cent. of their own funding on average, and relied on central Government grant for the rest, was bad for local democracy. They also argued that it caused the problem of gearing, by which an authority needs to raise its council tax bill by an average of 4 per cent. to raise its budget by just 1 per cent.
	The review has met several times under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire. It has discussed the principles of a successful local government finance system, commissioned independent research—all of which is now available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website, so it is transparent and available for everyone to become engaged with—and held a public consultation. It is now discussing possible reform options. In the context of this debate, I want to emphasise two of its findings so far.
	First, the research shows that much of the public are not clear where accountability for local government services lies or where the money comes from. What matters to them is not where local authorities get their money, but that services are efficiently delivered. There seems to be no sign of a direct link between the balance of funding and local election turnout—that was a surprise to many of us. Secondly, our consultation results show that there are many concerns about aspects of the local government finance system, particularly gearing and the impact of council tax rises on taxpayers with fixed incomes. However, there was no clear or simple view of what needs to be done. There are no easy fixes or quick wins and we do not want a knee-jerk reaction. That is why we reject the simplistic, uncosted notions proposed by the Liberal Democrats, and why the official Opposition have so far remained silent on the matter. We need to think the issues through fully if we want, as I do, a system that is fair and widely accepted.
	Let me look at my hon. Friend's proposal for a local income tax. The balance of funding review consultation showed support in some quarters for replacing or supplementing council tax with a local income tax, or at least considering the case for one. However, we already gain most of our tax revenue from a national income tax, so we would need to be very sure of the case for having a local income tax, too. I should also point out that the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government do not favour replacing council tax with local income tax. However, we are certainly prepared in the review to listen to reasoned arguments, and this is one of four issues on which we are asking expert organisations—in this case, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—to provide further evidence on the pros and cons. That is vital in the case of local income tax, because there are many different ways in which it could work. My hon. Friend proposes assigning a fixed proportion of national income tax to local government. That would, as he suggested, provide security, but it would hardly give councils greater freedom because they would have no control over the rate. I can see that it would be easier to administer than a system where councils set the rate, but I am not sure how it would increase local democracy.

Graham Allen: I need to make it clear that, as my hon. Friend has grasped, I am not suggesting that local authorities themselves should have any ability to vary the rate—certainly, not initially—but that the amount of national income tax that gets diverted to local services follows a more direct route that would aid accountability. In a sense, since it does not alter the payments made by the individual taxpayer, it is a fairly modest proposal, but the symbolism of assigning that money as a local income tax would be a tremendous boon to accountability. It need not necessarily stop there, but I am conscious of my hon. Friend's blandishments about not doing anything too radical. This proposal is radical enough—I hope that it would encourage local government to think further about its options in a decade or two.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He talked about creating a new independent commission of elected members who would distribute that ring-fenced money. I can see advantages to his proposals as well as a great many disadvantages—that is why the balance of funding review is considering all the issues. Some advocates of local income tax suggest that its administrative costs are minimal, but that is frankly not credible. The review will need to hear a great deal of evidence about that.
	I am aware that time is running out, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend also suggested the re-localisation of business rates. We have a predisposition against re-localisation because we fear that a postcode lottery may occur where businesses are allowed to go down that route.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to this important debate. His paper certainly reflects the importance of getting it right, and it is admirably detailed in its proposals. These are complex issues. There is no easy fix and no magic formula: we need to plan for the long term. We are firmly committed to the new localism, as well as to providing new freedoms to local government and exploring options on how it is financed, although I have to say that the Government's considering how such options might work does not mean that we endorse or intend to adopt them, whatever newspapers might say.
	The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

NOTHING